The_Patriot21 Posted August 17, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted August 17, 2013 It does but I still disagree-i still say they should have the legal right to refuse service for any reason whether we agree with it or not. It is a private business, not a public one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted August 17, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,194 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,471 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted August 17, 2013 One more thing then I will shut up about this! If it were about the just the feeding of the child= then covered would produce the same effect (the feeding of the child) BUT they want their breast exposed! Now a rating of a movie is based upon the partial nudity (breast exposure) for a certain age of a child to see... so how does all this work out but a certain hidden agenda that is cleverly hiding behind a supposed innocence! Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted August 17, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 It does but I still disagree-i still say they should have the legal right to refuse service for any reason whether we agree with it or not. It is a private business, not a public one. True in bold, yet would you support the business kicking someone out or refusing business for bottle-feeding? Or perhaps being black? Curious where does one draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted August 17, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 Since Firestorm shared his recent experience I'd like to share mine... Yesterday we went to a birthing center to talk to a midwife (who's also a registered nurse or RN; she has had 4 kids). While my wife was talking to the midwife I was watching our little one year old. He wandered back into the main lobby area and made a little friend. The other little one was probably about two and they started rolling a ball to each other. I realized this little boy's mother was nursing practically uncovered when I walked into the room. I averted my eyes. No big deal. Generally speaking there are few men who are at the facility so I imagine she probably didn't expect me to be there. A few seconds later I passed by her and she had adjusted her clothing while nursing her 4 week old. I carried on and played with the little ones (my child and her 2 year old). After she was done nursing we chatted a little bit about what it's like to have two children so close in age. It was a 2-3 minute conversation. Was she being immodest? Nope. Was I tempted to lust after her? Not really I do not see breastfeeding as a temptation. Did I treat her like a human being? Yes. Was I bit uncomfortable at first? Sure. If I ever see her again (they're only open two days a week so it may very well happen as there's a chiropractor there too) will she remember me ... A. as the judgmental guy who told her to cover up and gave her glaring/unapproving looks or B. as the guy who valued her (and her child) as a person and realized her intent was not to purposefully make me stumble? Again, I do think intent is important. I think also giving people grace and the benefit of the doubt is good too. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted August 17, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 One more thing then I will shut up about this! If it were about the just the feeding of the child= then covered would produce the same effect (the feeding of the child) BUT they want their breast exposed! Now a rating of a movie is based upon the partial nudity (breast exposure) for a certain age of a child to see... so how does all this work out but a certain hidden agenda that is cleverly hiding behind a supposed innocence! Love, Steven When you say covered what do you mean Enoob? Do you mean with a blanket for example? Because when I think of covered I think if the baby's covering the breast, the mother's shirt, etc. that to me is covered. Just making sure we're using the same definition for the term here. What hidden agenda do you think is cleverly hiding here? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted August 17, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,194 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,471 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted August 17, 2013 One more thing then I will shut up about this! If it were about the just the feeding of the child= then covered would produce the same effect (the feeding of the child) BUT they want their breast exposed! Now a rating of a movie is based upon the partial nudity (breast exposure) for a certain age of a child to see... so how does all this work out but a certain hidden agenda that is cleverly hiding behind a supposed innocence! Love, Steven When you say covered what do you mean Enoob? Do you mean with a blanket for example? Because when I think of covered I think if the baby's covering the breast, the mother's shirt, etc. that to me is covered. Just making sure we're using the same definition for the term here. They make a very light weight small blanket that would that would in virtue solve the problem of any form of the woman's breast being seen... besides nursing infants don't always remain on the nipple but take breaks and coaxing by the mother to continue all in the process of feeding the child! When the child does break- this milk continues from the nipple under somewhat pressure and squirts out! I would think this an unsavory experience for those at the next table! What hidden agenda do you think is cleverly hiding here? The desire to expose her breast to others and not just to the child for food! GE there is a whole pornographic industry of perversion of lactating mothers... I know gross but what if that sort of pervert were in the restaurant - would she be guilty of feeding his perversion by her supposed freedom? Most of our Godly women here have spoken softly to this issue by requiring modesty to be the rule! God bless them as their heart desire to keep themselves covered as God has taught them....Love, Steven God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted August 18, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted August 18, 2013 It does but I still disagree-i still say they should have the legal right to refuse service for any reason whether we agree with it or not. It is a private business, not a public one. True in bold, yet would you support the business kicking someone out or refusing business for bottle-feeding? Or perhaps being black? Curious where does one draw the line? define support. I would not support any legal actions being taken against it no. Civil action, such as a protest or a boycott, if I thought it was a case of the mother being unfairly mistreated, which appears to be the case here, I would support and maybe even take part in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 It is the healthiest option for mother and baby, usually. We should support both breastfeeding and modesty. Bingo. breastfeeding and descretion are not mutually exclusive. There really is not serious issue here, except for those who choose to make an issue out of it. I think that women who want to breastfeed should do so, and those who object need to get over it. I also feel that those who are not comfortable around it, cannot help that they feel the way they do, and a decent person, does not want to make others uncomfortable, and if that disturbs breast feeding moms, they should also get over it. Instead of insisting on our personal so called rights, why not go out of the way to accomodate others - it applies to both sides of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted August 18, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 18, 2013 I used to be that people were offended, sickened and distressed when they saw interracial couples together. Those people were wrong then, and people distressed about mothers nursing are wrong now. I have seen no good reason whatsoever that people should be offended, yet they go on, accusing these women of immodesty and a number of other things. My sister in law has done this with both my niece and nephew, and I take issue with anyone who would complain that she has 'no modesty' or the like. She just wanted to feed her children, not flaunt herself for attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigalson123 Posted August 18, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 232 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/22/1965 Share Posted August 18, 2013 well, for all that it's worth, being a former restaurant mgr, I think it's in poor taste to be uncovered and nursing. Just because a law says it's "legal" doesn't make it right. Do I need to cite the laws of the land that are on the books as we speak and we might actually agree that the idea is absurd? In the end, there are plenty of things that while on private property you can't do because the owner doesn't allow it. A shopping mall can institute a rule about gang colors/explicit t-shirts/whether you are allowed to carry a knife etc on their grounds, while those items might be "legal" that doesn't mean that the private owner has to allow it. But as usual this country is more interested in pushing the individuals rights as opposed to common sense. And btw, I don't think this would have had any traction if it wasn't CFA, due to the recent definition of marriage controversy that ensued. Again, my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts