Breastfeeding laws and breastfeeding rights.

[Sustainer]

You don't have to stop when someone asks no matter what state you're in. You have the right to NIP anywhere in the country. When a state passes a law declaring it to be legal, they are simply clarifying a right that already exists.

[Evie]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

You don't have to stop when someone asks no matter what state you're in. You have the right to NIP anywhere in the country. When a state passes a law declaring it to be legal, they are simply clarifying a right that already exists.

But if a business owner asks you to leave/cover up and there is no law telling him he cannot do otherwise, then you have no choice but to comply. Business owners have a right to decide who they will and will not accept as customers so long as there is no law specifically telling them they cannot, like the Civil Rights Act or a state breastfeeding law.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Evie

But if a business owner asks you to leave/cover up and there is no law telling him he cannot do otherwise, then you have no choice but to comply.

You do have a choice. You can politely decline.

Business owners have a right to decide who they will and will not accept as customers

No they don't. They don't have the right to kick out breastfeeding mothers any more than they have the right to kick out formula-feeding fathers. A business would not be legally able to kick someone out by saying, "Sorry, sir, we don't allow fathers to feed their babies bottles in here." Same goes for breastfeeding mothers.

[Evie]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

No they don't. They don't have the right to kick out breastfeeding mothers any more than they have the right to kick out formula-feeding fathers. A business would not be legally able to kick someone out by saying, "Sorry, sir, we don't allow fathers to feed their babies bottles in here." Same goes for breastfeeding mothers.

Yes, they do. They have the legal right to refuse service to anyone, unless there is a law specifically protecting a particular class of people.

[Sustainer]

There's no law specifically protecting blue-eyed people. Do you think a business could legally kick people out by saying "We don't serve blue-eyed people here" ?

I don't need a law specifically telling me I may breathe, or be 5' 4", or breastfeed, or tie my shoe, or smile, or wear a green shirt, etc, etc, etc, while I'm shopping in the corner grocery store. I'm perfectly within my rights doing any of those things in a movie theater or anywhere else, and a business person would not be legally allowed to kick me out for doing any of those things.

[Evie]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

There's no law specifically protecting blue-eyed people. Do you think a business could legally kick people out by saying "We don't serve blue-eyed people here" ?

I don't need a law specifically telling me I may breathe, or be 5' 4", or breastfeed, or tie my shoe, or smile, or wear a green shirt, etc, etc, etc, while I'm shopping in the corner grocery store. I'm perfectly within my rights doing any of those things in a movie theater or anywhere else, and a business person would not be legally allowed to kick me out for doing any of those things.

Yes, they could! It's private property. That's one of the most foundational concepts of our legal system. I know it sounds outrageous to think that banning people for wearing a green shirt or whatever is not illegal, but unless there's a specific law about it (and I believe in California that dress is one of those protected categories) it IS legal for the business owner to do so. The fact is that business owners typically don't make these types of arbitrary policies because it's bad for their business--why would they want to exclude people (and their money) just because they are wearing green shirts? But when it comes to breastfeeding in public, the very existence of this forum shows how controversial an issue this is for the general public. If a business owner thinks s/he's going to lose more customers who don't want to see someone breastfeeding in public than breastfeeding mothers who might be offended, then s/he'll try to appease the larger constituency. Hence the need for breastfeeding laws.

[Sustainer]

There are different laws for private properties such as personal residences than their are for what are known as "places of public accomodation." In a person's private house, they can make up any fool rule they like. They can say they won't allow redheads in their house. But if you open a business up to the public, you're not legally allowed to say things like "If you've ever played the saxophone, you can't come in. We don't serve your kind here." People have to be allowed into places of public accomodation. They have the right to shop in the store that everyone else is allowed to shop in. It would be ridiculous to have to protect that right by passing individual laws like "alright, no one's allowed to discriminate against brown eyed people. And no one's allowed to discriminate against receptionists. And no one's allowed to discriminate against people who like astronomy." By default, you have the legal right to do things like breathe and breastfeed, even if you go in a store. You don't surrender all your rights when you walk through the door. If you go in a restaurant, they're not legally allowed to say "sorry, people between the ages of 40 and 50 aren't allowed to eat in here."



From http://www.llli.org/Law/Bills4.html

"Mothers have a right to breastfeed where they go with their baby, even if that is out in public. It does not matter whether the mother goes to a public or a private place, or even whether they are in a state with legislation. No one has the right to tell a mother how to feed her baby, especially a way that increases the risk of illness to both mother and baby! Legislation has been enacted in nearly one-half of the states in the U.S. because they want to clarify this right, and in some cases, provide a remedy for mothers told to stop breastfeeding. It is hoped that legislation will help to change society's attitudes that breastfeeding is something indecent and should not be done in public. Underlying this, is the goal to increase the rates and duration of breastfeeding recognizing that this is an important health choice that must be encouraged.

...

"It is important to remember that women have a right to breastfeed in public whether there is a law or not. The purpose of legislation is NOT to legalize it, but to clarify the fact that women have the right to breastfeed in public, or that it is not a criminal offense, such as indecent exposure. Thus, if you are in a state that does not have legislation, you still have the right to feed your baby where you go. Breastfeeding legislation often exempts breastfeeding from any criminal statutes, such as amending an indecent exposure or nudity law. More progressive legislation creates a new law that sets forth a woman's right to breastfeed. Some of the laws provide mothers with legal recourse if they are told to stop breastfeeding, such as New York, which has the strongest law in the nation, where a right to breastfeed as one of a person's civil rights was created."

[Evie]

As an attorney, I am well aware that there is a distinction between public accomodations and private residences; however, a public accomodation is still private property if it is privately owned. The distinction is one largely created by laws such as the Civil Rights Act that restrict the rights of private business owners to exclude whomever they choose from their premises. Such laws apply only to places that hold themselves open to the public and not to personal residences or private clubs. But that doesn't mean that places of public accomodation can no longer discriminate. It just means they can't discriminate on the basis of those characteristics that are protected by law.

I have no idea what legal theory the attorneys above are basing their statements on, but it is definitely an extreme view. I think they may be using "right" in the moral sense rather than the legal sense, especially when they make such sweeping statements as the one in the first sentence of the first quote.

In general, you do not have a right to enter or remain in a place of public accommodation. That is the default. You only have a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of those characteristics that are protected by law. You don't need a law to tell you can breathe, walk, etc. in the grocery store because no grocery store is going to prohibit you from doing those things; it would be a bad business decision to exclude so many people arbitrarily from their store. But if one did, you would essentially have three choices: comply, leave, or become a trespasser. Of course, public backlash would then follow against the grocery store and a law would probably be passed prohibiting public accommodations from telling customers they cannot breathe, much as breastfeeding discrimination has inspired protests and laws protecting it. You may have had the moral or natural right prior to the law's passage, but you did not have the legal right until it was enacted. But perhaps that's getting too theoretical for this thread?

Standard disclaimer: This is the law generally. I am only licensed to practice law in one state, so I cannot speak to the minutiae of every state's laws. In doing a bit of digging for contrary opinions I discovered that California has a law that has been intrepreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of characteristics other than those expressly listed in the law. But it's still a law that had to be passed to overcome the general common law principle that a private business can choose to exclude whomever s/he desires from his/her business. There could be some states that habe taken a different approach from the one I described but they would be in the minority.

[Sustainer]

"Mothers have a right to breastfeed where they go with their baby, even if that is out in public" does not seem at all like a sweeping, extreme statement to me. On the contrary, it seems very very basic, like "you have the right to breathe where you go." Certain things are fundamental and don't require specific laws to protect their legality. Breathing. Breastfeeding. One of the dangers of passing specific laws to protect specific rights is that people like you think that that means that anything there isn't a specific law about is not a legal right.

The default is that you do have the right to enter and remain in a place of public accomodation. I doubt you could find a judge that would uphold the "right" of a business owner who had kicked out all the female customers with brown hair, or all the customers who were breastfeeding mothers, whether there were specific laws protecting people about whom such things are true or not.

The reason that I don't need a law telling me I may walk, breathe, and breastfeed in a store isn't that it would hurt businesses to make rules against such actions, nor is it that businesspeople would not want public backlash. The reason is that I have a basic, fundamental right to do such things. Not just a moral right, but a legal right by default. Property ownership is not so strong a claim that property owners have the right to limit such basic functions of people who are on their turf. No law would ever be passed prohibiting business owners from banning breathing. The business owner would simply be informed that people already have the legal right to breathe when they're in his store, even if it's not written down in the law books.

[Evie]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

The default is that you do have the right to enter and remain in a place of public accomodation.

This statement is just flat out wrong, legally. It just is. Clearly there is nothing else I can do or say to convince you otherwise, so I'll have to leave it at that.

[Sustainer]

I walk into a store, I'm within my legal rights. Period. The owner can't just throw me out for being right-handed. No court or judge would accept such an action. But you're right about the fact that you and I have completely different interpretations of law, and the argument isn't getting anywhere, so we might as well just drop it.

[Evie]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

I walk into a store, I'm within my legal rights. Period. The owner can't just throw me out for being right-handed. No court or judge would accept such an action. But you're right about the fact that you and I have completely different interpretations of law, and the argument isn't getting anywhere, so we might as well just drop it.

Deal.

[Yo Becca]

Originally Posted by Evie

Deal.

I know you guys agree to disagree, but I had to chime in in agreement with Evie. SOme examples:

No Shoes. No shirt, no service: Public yet privately-owned businesses have the right to kick anyone out who violates their rules, so long as they are not protected BY LAW. There's no reason to ask you to leave for having brown hair or blue eyes - but if you wearing a controversial shirt or not wearing shoes would turn off other customers, they can ask you to leave - and you would have to leave or be removed by the police, whose job is to protect the rights of property owners

Jim Crow laws - in the 1950's and 1960's, people were regularly kicked out of public spaces b/c of their race - the ONLY thing that forced private property owners to stop this practice was the passing of the Civil Rights Act - without that protection, businesses could still restrict who comes into their space and the police would have to back them up. Nursing mothers are NOT protected by law except in those states that have specific laws protecting them.

Laws protecting guidedogs - businesses have the exception for service dogs b/c they are required to do so by law - otherwise they could just deny all dogs/animals and people who needed service dogs wouldn't be allowed.

Protections of the civil rights act are NOT extended to gay/lesbian/transgender/queer people unless a specific state has passed such laws. So the Cracker Barrel, for example, has fired employees for being gay and asked queer people to leave the restaurant - and it is their RIGHT to do so in my state, where there are no specific protections for queer folks(which is but one reason I boycott the place). The business can't tell them not to be gay, but can make them leave. and the fact is that most people in my state would either not care about that discrimination or would support it ("I don't want my kids to see that!") - so there is no real economic incentive for the business to change it's practice (unlike discriminating against blue eyed people which would hurt them financially) and there is no legal incentive either (unlike trying to kick out someone for being Black, which is illegal).

Mothering had a great feature a few months ago on breastfeeding and the law - BF is NOT protected in every state, and there are many levels of protection, so a president who supports protecting BF and NIP under the law can support meaningful change in the lives of women.

Of course, we all have the right to refuse to stop NIP if asked - but depending on the laws of YOUR state, if the police come they may side with the business owner and ask you to leave or even cite you for indecent exposure (not in most states, but possible in a small minority)

[Sustainer]

Certainly they can require shoes. They have the right to protect themselves from lawsuits if someone steps on something sharp. They can refuse people service if they have a reasonable basis for doing so. But they can't exclude people based on absurd rules they've made up. They can't kick people out arbitrarily. They can't say "sorry, people who wear their babies instead of using a stroller aren't welcome here" or "sorry, people who wear glasses instead of contacts aren't welcome here." They can't discriminate against groups of people, whether it's librarians or breastfeeding mothers. They can't kick people out for doing something they have a right to do and which doesn't cause anyone else harm, whether it's breastfeeding or blinking.

[Yo Becca]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

They can refuse people service if they have a reasonable basis for doing so. But they can't exclude people based on absurd rules they've made up. They can't kick people out arbitrarily. They can't say "sorry, people who wear their babies instead of using a stroller aren't welcome here" or "sorry, people who wear glasses instead of contacts aren't welcome here." They can't discriminate against groups of people, whether it's librarians or breastfeeding mothers.

Yes. They can. The ONLY THING preventing racist business owners from saying "no people of color allowed" is the Civil Rights Act. The ONLY THING allowing people with disablities access to so-called public places is the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Teenagers get asked to leave places ALL THE TIME b/c restaurants and businesses don't want them near. The Home Depot makes day laborers leave the parking lot because they don't want them there - there is no law protecting the right of day laborers from Home depot parking lot discrimination. Some Tatoo parlors do not allow children period - the law allows children to be there supervised, but the business has the right to say no and there's no law protecting the right of a child to be in a tatoo parlor. And YES you can be asked to not bring children in strollers or carriers places - ever been to a consignment sale on a friday morning?

If your local supermarket decided tomorrow that they didn't want a certain group there - so long as it is not a "protected class" under the law, it is their right to do so. You can't be discriminated against in that manner by race, religion, age, sex - the things covered by law. But BF status is NOT protected by law in all states, neither is sexual identity or transgender status in many places. We feel a sense of confidence b/c of the civil rights act - but 30 years ago, as a woman you would have easily been kept out of otherwise public places, and people of color were segregated out of many public (both state owned and privately owned) places. The only difference, legally, between then and now is laws like the CRA - without such laws, the property owner would retain the right to say "sorry, woman, this place is only for men" or "sorry, African American person, you cannot come in this store" and the police would defend the property owner. Every identity is not protected.

And while the shoes law is "practical" - why the no shirts rule (for males)? B/c some people find it offensive or trashy and the business wants to seem more upstanding.

Common sense and profit motive prevents most discrimination of this kind - but a mother was kicked off a plane LAST YEAR for breastfeeding - and she only has the right to pursue legal remedy because of where the plane was landed (vermont) - had it been in another city, she would have just been kicked off a plane with no legal recourse, and the business would have been within its rights.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Yo Becca

Teenagers get asked to leave places ALL THE TIME b/c restaurants and businesses don't want them near. The Home Depot makes day laborers leave the parking lot because they don't want them there - there is no law protecting the right of day laborers from Home depot parking lot discrimination.

Sounds like you're talking about loitering, not customers.

Originally Posted by Yo Becca

Some Tatoo parlors do not allow children period - the law allows children to be there supervised, but the business has the right to say no and there's no law protecting the right of a child to be in a tatoo parlor.

Obviously children are not allowed in tatoo parlors, nor are they allowed in strip clubs. This is apples and oranges.

And YES you can be asked to not bring children in strollers or carriers places - ever been to a consignment sale on a friday morning?

They can't tell you that you can't use a sling and that you must put your child down in a stroller instead. Have you ever heard of a single instance of a store owner telling a mother she must take her child from her sling and put the child in a stroller immediately, or leave the store immediately? Even if it happened, the law would be on the mother's side.

without such laws, the property owner would retain the right to say "sorry, woman, this place is only for men" or "sorry, African American person, you cannot come in this store" and the police would defend the property owner.

That's not true. Even if the police did do that, the courts would rule in favor of the customer.

a mother was kicked off a plane LAST YEAR for breastfeeding - and she only has the right to pursue legal remedy because of where the plane was landed (vermont) - had it been in another city, she would have just been kicked off a plane with no legal recourse, and the business would have been within its rights.

No it wouldn't have. She would have had legal recourse. The fact that there was a state involved that had a specific law simply made it easier for her.

[bbrandonsmom]

In the July/Aug issue of mothering they have the map listing if a woman is protected while nursing in public. I can't seem to bring up the link. Anyhow, this is what I was referring to. In PA it says there is no law protecting the right to nurse in public. So if I/or anyone else were to refuse the request to leave an establishment/or stop nursing, there could be legal consequences? That's how I interpreted it.

[Evie]

bbrandonsmom, if it's Pennsylvania you're concerned about then you don't need to worry. That state enacted a breastfeeding protection law last year, just not in time to make it into the July/August issue of Mothering. You can read the text of the law here.

Originally Posted by Sustainer

No. Read this article from the La Leche League organization's website:

http://www.llli.org/Law/Bills4.html

"Mothers have a right to breastfeed where they go with their baby, even if that is out in public. It does not matter whether the mother goes to a public or a private place, or even whether they are in a state with legislation.

"Legislation has been enacted in nearly one-half of the states in the U.S. because they want to clarify this right... Underlying this, is the goal to increase the rates and duration of breastfeeding recognizing that this is an important health choice that must be encouraged."

"It is important to remember that women have a right to breastfeed in public whether there is a law or not. The purpose of legislation is NOT to legalize it, but to clarify the fact that women have the right to breastfeed in public"

"Thus, if you are in a state that does not have legislation, you still have the right to feed your baby where you go."

Look, I know we agreed to disagree, but I can't just let this be out there as the *official* position of the law, because it simply isn't. In those states without public breastfeeding laws, you do not have the *legal* right to breastfeed on private property. If a private business owner asks you to stop or cover up, you have three options: leave, comply, or become a trespasser.
From a practical standpoint, if the police were called in such a situation they would side with the business, because the business owner has a right to refuse service. (And this happens even in states WITH breastfeeding protection laws, though clearly it shouldn't.) Are you going to get arrested? Probably not, as I've never heard of a case where that happened, but it's a possibility. Especially if you continue to assert your non-existent right to the police.

[didkisa]

I agree with Evie and Yo Becca on that off-topic topic...ever hear of requiring a dress coat and tie in a nice, fancy restaurant?

I look forward to hearing more of what people learn about the candidates' views on bfing, nip, and legislation.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Evie

In those states without public breastfeeding laws, you do not have the *legal* right to breastfeed on private property.

You've already said this, and I still maintain that people have the legal right to breastfeed everywhere.

Originally Posted by Evie

I know we agreed to disagree, but I can't just let this be out there as the *official* position of the law, because it simply isn't.

That's your interpretation. Your opinion. The article that I quoted, from the La Leche League website, was written by a lawyer.

If a private business owner asks you to stop or cover up, you have three options: leave, comply, or become a trespasser.

As I said before, you have the option of politely declining. Remaining in a place of public accomodation after a business person has harassed you is not traspassing.

From a practical standpoint, if the police were called in such a situation they would side with the business, because the business owner has a right to refuse service.

I think they would be more likely to side with the mother. Even if they didn't, I believe the court would side with the mother. The business owner does not have the right to refuse service on the basis of a mother nursing her child.

Especially if you continue to assert your non-existent right to the police.

As I said before, the right to breastfeed where one goes does exist, whether it is written down or not. It is fundamental.

Originally Posted by didkisa

ever hear of requiring a dress coat and tie in a nice, fancy restaurant?

Fancy restaurants require fancy clothes because they are fancy restaurants. Someone who harasses a breastfeeding mother has no such excuse.