Chick-fil-A manager shames nursing mom

[Guest]

 

I have a question. I see that the law was mentioned, that breastfeeding was allowed in public. Forgetting the morality and rudeness etc, (whichever way you view them), my question is this. Does a law, that requires that breastfeeding cannot be restricted in public, imply that a private business cannot have such restrictions? Where I live, many dining places have signs that say things like "No shirt, no shoes, no service!"

There are other restaurants, where men have to wear ties. Private businesses have long been able to set the standards of their customers, to provide the atmosphere they want their establishment to have. Does Chick-Fil-A not have this privilege also? Is not the manager within his legal rights to say "Ma'am, this makes our customers uncomfortable, please cover up."

 

That title "Chick-fil-A manager shames nursing mom", how prejudicial is that? It is the manager's fault that the woman feels shame for an incident she initiated, knowing full well that people have these feelings? I don't think so. A. She either caused this knowing the risks, or caused it intentionally.

 

She has my sympathy, that our society is so childish about these matters, but she does not get my sympathy for causing an incident she was full aware was a possibility. B. I have to side with the restaurant management, since it is thier place. To make an extreme comparison, would she not likely feel entitled, if the shoe was on the other foot, and she had the manager over to her place, to insist that the man not expose himseld, even if the law held that that was o.k. on private property?

 

C. Everybody thinks they have rights, but they are not plucked out of the air, and they do not legally extend past what the law specifically says. We cannot assume that just becuase it is okay on the sidewalk, that it is okay in a privately owned restaurant.

 

Edit: Now, I just watched the video, it was not avaialble to me before. I see the law there says, that it is also o.k. in private places, if the woman is otherwise allowed to be there. D. So, let me add, what if that was not the case, as I supposed. And what about the notion of dress codes. E. that fact the breast feeding is allowed, does that mean necessarily, that she can just remove her top and do what what other women (and perhaps even men) are not allowed to do just becuase she has a suckling child? Or os it totally reasonable, for her to be expected to be as descreet as possible?

 

Interesting points Omegaman.

 

A. See your original post is the reason why IMO this is such a big issue brother. You IMO assume this was about the mother's intent (which you assume she was trying to start something) and not about the baby's needs. This is not only unkind but ungenerous IMO. I would venture to say that most nursing mothers are simply trying to get through the day without having a nervous breakdown. Lol.

 

Omegaman responds: I think you might have missed part of the statement that you highlighted. I said that the possibility existed also, that if she was not trying to start something, she at least knows that the possibility exists (if not probablility) that it would start something, that is what I meant by her knowing the risks. This has to be obvious, if even I know it, lol. I am not saying that her motives were wrong, but that she did this a one of several choices she could have made. It is not her fault, that other people have wierd feelings, but it is not the managers fault either. That statement was made, in the context of the manager being made to look like the bad guy, for looking to the interests of his business and perhaps the majority of the other patrons. I thing that is his job, and I doubt his intent was to shame her, just to ask her to be considerate and discreet. Might be inconvenient to her, but it is not evil.

 

B. People are unaware of the U.S. laws. Not to mention there is a clear double standard when it comes to breastfeeding IMO in the U.S. Also, to discriminate against a nursing mother is illegal. I suppose this is exactly why this laws were put into place - people often seem to care more about their own comfort than children's needs. And we wonder why there's such a lack of value of life and an emphasis on the death culture in the U.S. with abortions? 

 

Nothing to disagree with there.

 

C. According to U.S. law a woman may breastfeed any of the 50 states of the U.S. Yes, in 45 states she can nurse her child in public or in private in any location a woman is otherwise allowed to be. Further in Tennessee she is exempt from public indicency laws if her child is under 12 months old.

 

Laws are what they are, but I don't happen to think that the law has any moral authority to say that a breastfeeding womans rights, trump those of the person whose property she is one, and I would support a person right to set the conditions under which another person may remain on the property. I find thwe 12 month clause to be just wierd, as if suddenly when the clock strikes midnight, what she is doing is no longer a legitimate activity? She cannot suckle a 3 year old? What is that about?

 

Let me give you a really funny and yet ironic example. A speaker on breastfeeding was giving a conference in Las Vegas. She was eating lunch with her friends at the resaraunt of the hotel she was staying at when her child became hungry. So she proceeded to nurse her child. I've not been to LV but I hear there's a lot of skin exposed there. A manager came over and told her she needed to cover up as it was indicent. Seriously? Lol. The ladies had a good laugh at the irony and the speaker politely told the manager what the U.S. law was in the state. She then politely told the manager that she would finish up her child's nursing. Ironically there were fliers of naked women passed out at the entrance to this restaraunt. There was also a poster of a semi-nude woman advertising the hotel's daily performance where women used very little clothing if any at all. So people didn't have an issue with a semi-nude woman's poster or the flyers but with this woman's actions in providing for the needs of her child. A bit of a double standard?

 

Sure it is a double standard, different interests have different standards. How else can we explain a country, where the governent spends lots of money trying to educated people out of smoking, yet subsidizes tobacco farmers and has a vested interest in keeping tobacco in business for the tax revenues? Those people handing out flyers at the entrance, no not work for the restaurant, they have a different interest, but they are standing on the sidewalk (public property) and there is little the restaurant owner can do about it. It is not the restaurant owner who has the double standard, it is society as a whole. The restaurant is a business, and not a public institution, so even if it chooses to promote the body in some way that adds to it's bottom line, it is not obligated to promote the body for other reasons that are not in it's interests. I do agree it is ironic.

 

D. The difference between "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and nursing a child is a child's need for food is not optional. To start a baby on formula is optional and most nursing mother's won't run the risk of the baby getting used to not nursing - bottle feeding requires little effort on the part of the baby. Further, women often have a hard enough time keeping up with regular nursing every couple of hours (nevermind if her 2nd child nursed as well) so pumping may not have been a good option either. Not to mention pumping can be incredibly inneficient. For example when my wife nursed she would pump and get approximately 2 ounces on average after 2 hours of pumping. A baby under 6 months old could easily consume 4 ounces in a couple of minutes. Needless to say we stopped pumping.

 

Well, two things. The child's needs are not being denied, they are being postponed at best, and if it is understood ahead of time that this behavior is not acceptable, Mom can work around it, and if the child is delayed 5 or 10 minutes, his/her hunger is not going to go away, and that breast will still be of interest to the baby. However, my point there is that the restaurant may exercise a right to control the manner of dress, I see nothing wrong with that, though it might be silly. Sure, the mother's desire to feed her child is a better reason to expose some skin than just wanting to be shirtless for whatever reason people are wanting to do that. I am just not in agreement of making small business owners hop to every whim that others might have. If they do not like it, they can go elsewhere or start there own business.

I have an aquantance who makes his living, by sueing small businessed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, for violations that do not even effect him. I think someone needs to stand up for these small busineses, many of whom can barely keep the lights on. So how will we resolve this, make businesses have breast feeding and no breast feeding sections? I can see it coming to that. The smoking thing has become less of an issue, because people managed to eventually shame smokers into compliance with the will of the majority, a sort of peer pressuer tactic, but at least it is through submission of the will, not force of law to an increasing degree. Can we maybe, instead of making  a villain out of a store manager doing his job, make the villain out of those who have such antiquated ways of thinking, that they cannot stomach the idea that a woman using her breasts in the way God intended? I know, some cannot think that it might not be a sin. How is it possible, that we as a society, have thought it okay, that homosexuals should come out of the closet, and be  seen even as courageous, acting out there decadence in public displays of "pride", while trying to shove nursing moms into a closet?

 

I don't get it, it is childish, but I do not think it is right to blame the restauranteur, for the hyper prudish attitudes of the public. Why make two classes of victums to this folly?

 

 

E. How many women do you think really like to go around exposing themselves (going topless in your example) to other people? Say 5% of the population? Say maybe 1% of the population? Why do we punish all nursing mothers (say the the other 95%) for what a very small minority does in what we consider an indicent fashion? Instead of cheering on a mother who's trying to give her child the best possible nutrution (studies have shown that breast milk is significantly better than formula) we tend to automatically think they're participating deviant behavior.

 

I think the number of women who actually want to 'expose' themselves is very small, thought perhaps many would not mind the freedom to go topless just as men do, if it was viewed as morally equivalent. That breast milk is nutritious, is not debated that I know of, and I do not see that as relevant in any case. I do not really think many beleive that breast feeding is  a deviant behavior, just perhaps inconsiderate of those who for whatever reasons, are offended by it. For Christians, I think the loving thing to do is not cause problems for a breastfeeding mother, and for the Christian breast feeding mom, not to cause issues or offence etc, to those around. Love consists more of not defending your rights, but of surrendering them at times.

 

I think also, that this woman whatever her original intention was, she has made it clear that she wants to cause problems now.

 

But let's go back to the OP in this situation Jennifer was nursing her child outside while watching two other children. From the mother's own admission the nursing child does not do well with covers. She was doing what was best for her child and filling a need. She even IMO stepped outside so others wouldn't be bothered and she could watch the other 2 kids play (babysitter) while performing her other function (nursing mother). For reference too if the mother was nursing her other toddler still then she was having to alternate between children while nursing. This means she was nursing every couple of hours with the 5 month old baby and the other child every 3-4 hours. That's really a tough job in and of itself. Forget sleeping, taking care of her home, investing in her relationship with her friends/family, or going out to eat to try to take a break from all the stress at home.

 

Truthfully, she sounds wimpy and like an excuse maker to me, but that is just an opinion. It is hard being a mom, but it is not that hard, making arrangements to avoid this sort of problem. I have no issue with here doing the things she did, up until the point that she decided that her needs, wants, desires, and rights, trump those of those around her. My wife had triplets and then twins, and nursed them, and was able to do so without distressing others in the process. In my opinion, this mom could do the same, she just does not want to. I think her base intentions are good, her way of handling it, is unfortuneate.

 

I have to wonder, if this story did not get attention, basically because it was a Chick-Fil-A, and this is just another case of the media trying to damage the chain  for taking moral stances that the media disagrees with. Otherwise the title might read: Restaurant employee expresses concerns of others to breastfeeding mother.

<sigh>

Well there it is. My 2 cents.

 

God bless,

GE

 

Here is your change:

 

 

[other one]

 

 

This isn't rocket science folks! If a woman walked into a place topless would she be considered partially naked?

There is no innocence in the mother; there is no innocence in the child; there is no innocence in the world! satan

wants to use that which God has condemned as a means to justify his rebellion to God's judgment....  but the bottom

line is God intends for us to keep ourselves covered no matter what period! Love, Steven

 

 

Okay please clarify what you mean by the sentence in red?

 

When God searched out Adam and Eve hiding in the garden there was only God and Adam and Eve present in this shame they had

committed unto themselves - the shame of nakedness! The only cure then was temporary the killing of animals and shedding of blood

to cover the nakedness with their skins... we know the ultimate prophecy of The Christ coming and eternal cleansing of His Blood!

While in this body we are to remain covered as God has done unto us but as children our hope is in His Restoration of Perfection in the new

bodies second covering of righteousness...

Isa 61:10-11

10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,

My soul shall be joyful in my God;

For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,

He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,

As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,

And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,

As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,

So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.

NKJV

Love, Steven

 

I just had a thought......  what parts does the Bible say they covered up?  not sure of the answer

[Guest ninhao]

 

Yes peeping ninhao. Firstly I was confused that your post was completely struck through but I see you've fixed that.

 

I disagree with you btw  and I am always confused when people associate child nursing with indecent exposure.

I am confused also, are you saying you think that I think child nursing is indecent exposure? What is it exactly, you disgree with me on, I said a few things I think.

 

 

Do you want me to respond to your whole post or only the part which infers public nursing is associated with indecent exposure ?

 

I will do the latter.

 

She has my sympathy, that our society is so childish about these matters, but she does not get my sympathy for causing an incident she was full aware was a possibility. I have to side with the restaurant management, since it is thier place. To make an extreme comparison, would she not likely feel entitled, if the shoe was on the other foot, and she had the manager over to her place, to insist that the man not expose himseld, even if the law held that that was o.k. on private property?

 

 

 

This is associating using the breast for nursing with using the breast for exposure and even though the comparison is extreme it still makes this implication. There is nothing indecent about public nursing imo and I think you agree. 

 

She has my sympathy, that our society is so childish about these matters, but she does not get my sympathy for causing an incident she was full aware was a possibility.

 

[Guest ninhao]

Omegaman I have considered it is unfair of me to address only one small portion of your post so I'll do my best to think about the whole.

 

 

 

Omegaman, on 15 Aug 2013 - 6:34 PM, said:

I have a question. I see that the law was mentioned, that breastfeeding was allowed in public. Forgetting the morality and rudeness etc, (whichever way you view them), my question is this. Does a law, that requires that breastfeeding cannot be restricted in public, imply that a private business cannot have such restrictions? Where I live, many dining places have signs that say things like "No shirt, no shoes, no service!"

There are other restaurants, where men have to wear ties. Private businesses have long been able to set the standards of their customers, to provide the atmosphere they want their establishment to have. Does Chick-Fil-A not have this privilege also? Is not the manager within his legal rights to say "Ma'am, this makes our customers uncomfortable, please cover up."

 

 

In Australia it is against the law to cause any inconvenience to nursing mothers.

 

“In Australian Federal Law breastfeeding is a right, not a privilege.

Under the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984 it is illegal in Australia to discriminate against a person either directly or indirectly on the grounds of breastfeeding. Direct discrimination happens when a person treats someone less favourably than another person. For example, it is discriminatory for a waiter to decline to serve a patron who is breastfeeding. Indirect discrimination happens when an apparently neutral condition has the effect of disadvantaging a particular group, in this case women who are breastfeeding. For example, an employer may impose a requirement on all employees that they must not make any breaks for set periods during the day under any circumstances. Such a condition would particularly disadvantage women who need to express milk.”

 

I’m not sure what the laws in USA state but if the restaurant owner is allowed to have a sign  “ no breastfeeding allowed” then maybe he should do this. I think it will cause his business more harm than allowing breastfeeding though imo.

 

 

That title "Chick-fil-A manager shames nursing mom", how prejudicial is that? It is the manager's fault that the woman feels shame for an incident she initiated, knowing full well that people have these feelings? I don't think so. She either caused this knowing the risks, or caused it intentionally.

 

 

Yes the title is controversy seeking I agree; however associating nursing a child with controversy confuses me. Why can we assume the mother would think public nursing would cause any concern ?

 

 

She has my sympathy, that our society is so childish about these matters, but she does not get my sympathy for causing an incident she was full aware was a possibility. I have to side with the restaurant management, since it is thier place. To make an extreme comparison, would she not likely feel entitled, if the shoe was on the other foot, and she had the manager over to her place, to insist that the man not expose himseld, even if the law held that that was o.k. on private property?

 

 

I addressed this in the above post I think let me know if I didn’t.

 

 

Everybody thinks they have rights, but they are not plucked out of the air, and they do not legally extend past what the law specifically says. We cannot assume that just becuase it is okay on the sidewalk, that it is okay in a privately owned restaurant.

Edit: Now, I just watched the video, it was not avaialble to me before. I see the law there says, that it is also o.k. in private places, if the woman is otherwise allowed to be there. So, let me add, what if that was not the case, as I supposed. And what about the notion of dress codes. that fact the breast feeding is allowed, does that mean necessarily, that she can just remove her top and do what what other women (and perhaps even men) are not allowed to do just becuase she has a suckling child? Or os it totally reasonable, for her to be expected to be as descreet as possible?

 

 

Yes it is acceptable that the nursing mother not remove her top imo and I don’t think they do. I have never heard of a nursing mother removing her top.  

 

I would like to add Omegaman that I'm not sure if many people understand the benefits of on demand breast feeding ( or agree with the benefits ). Here is a link.

 

Benefits of On-Demand Feeding

 

I have been convinced of the importance but it is up to everyone what they decide.

[The_Patriot21]

I see no one has bothered to answer my question-what about the stores right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Just curious. The accusation was made that the store broke the law-but the law states private businesses can refuse business, so which law trumps which? mothers rights verses companys rights?

[Guest]

 

 

Yes peeping ninhao. Firstly I was confused that your post was completely struck through but I see you've fixed that.

 

I disagree with you btw  and I am always confused when people associate child nursing with indecent exposure.

I am confused also, are you saying you think that I think child nursing is indecent exposure? What is it exactly, you disgree with me on, I said a few things I think.

 

 

Do you want me to respond to your whole post or only the part which infers public nursing is associated with indecent exposure ?

 

I will do the latter. <I meant just the part that indicates that I might be one who associates nursing with indecent exposure, but respond to whatever you want to.>

 

She has my sympathy, that our society is so childish about these matters, but she does not get my sympathy for causing an incident she was full aware was a possibility. I have to side with the restaurant management, since it is thier place. To make an extreme comparison, would she not likely feel entitled, if the shoe was on the other foot, and she had the manager over to her place, to insist that the man not expose himseld, even if the law held that that was o.k. on private property?

 

 

 

This is associating using the breast for nursing with using the breast for exposure and even though the comparison is extreme it still makes this implication. There is nothing indecent about public nursing imo and I think you agree. 

 

<I agree that nursing is not indecent, and the comparison is extreme, except for one simple point. I was not at the restaurant, so it doesn't matter what I think, she need not have been concerned about me. However, she was not alone, there were others around, and I think she should consider that others might think it indecent. So to a degree, she is placing people into the position that she would be in, if that extreme example were to take place. It is about the mindset of others, we are not islands.>

 

She has my sympathy, that our society is so childish about these matters, but she does not get my sympathy for causing an incident she was full aware was a possibility.

 

 

[Guest]

Yes the title is controversy seeking I agree; however associating nursing a child with controversy confuses me. Why can we assume the mother would think public nursing would cause any concern ?

 

Because it has for decades here at a minimum, this issue is not at all new, and I think it nearly impossible, that she was unaware of that. I do not recall it always having been an issue, but I think that is largely because it used to be that women just never really did this that much, they tried to be as discreet as possible, or maybe it was going on all around me, and I just never noticed (which tends to indicate discretion anyway).

[GoldenEagle]

Im going to jump in here and play devils advocate here. the comment was made earlier that since open breastfeeding was legal in tennesee, that chic fil A was breaking the law. Well, they wern't-I do believe the law also states that private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as well. So which law triumphs?

 

What do you think Pat?

[The_Patriot21]

I'm torn honestly-part of me thinks women should be allowed to nurse-on the other I've always been an advocate of the rights of a private company, that right or wrong they should have the right to do business as they see fit. Which is why I asked the question so I can get someone else's perspective.

[firestormx]

Interesting thing happen to me today. I have been posting a lot a breastfeeding thread, and after speaking with someone about what happened today. I decided it would be best to post this in both threads.

 

I've spoken out very hard against women not using covers when breastfeeding. Well, today I took my kids on a trip for the day to the museum of life and science in Durham, NC.  When we where there, we were looking at a weather exhibit. Beside the exhibit was a small padded bench. When we walked in a went to the exhibit, my kids and nephew kept going around the exhibit. I noticed the first time I passed the woman she was holding a small child against herself. The child was about 18-24 months old. Maybe, just maybe 12-18 months. Anyways, as I passed the woman the first time she looked up at me and I just gave a quick smile and went back to watching my kids. 3 kids is a handful in a room full of people. Well, I said we went around the exhibit 3 times. The 3rd time around, I realized the woman was not holding the child. She was breastfeeding the child. I didn't see an inch of flesh. She was using no cover. I know my kids didn't notice because they would have said something, or asked me about it. Nobody noticed anything.

 

While I said in my posts many times, that breastfeeding was ok as long as it was done modestly. I was pretty harsh about using a cover. God reminded me today, that I don't know everything. I apologize to everyone for my words and attitude.

 

God Bless you all

Firestormx

Joseph