Chick-fil-A manager shames nursing mom

[enoob57]

 

 

naked is naked and just because the law says its ok does that mean it is? God covered the nakedness in the very beginning and that

hasn't changed! If the law says homosexuality is ok - is it...  Love, Steven

 

Steven, you've hit on the crux of the matter.  Just because it's legal doesn't make it something most people want to see while dining....or anywhere really.  Mothers who feel it's okay to do this have no modesty, IMO. 

 

 

Are you referring to a mother breastfeeding her baby period or are you saying a mother breastfeeding uncovered?

 

God bless,

GE

 

GE that's kind of obvious isn't it...

[enoob57]

 

naked is naked and just because the law says its ok does that mean it is? God covered the nakedness in the very beginning and that hasn't changed! If the law says homosexuality is ok - is it...  Love, Steven

 

A mother can nurse her child covered in a modest or immodest fashion. Yet again, a woman can nurse her child without being covered in a modest or immodest fashion. But everyone is entitled to their opinions and views.

We're not discussing homosexuality brother. We're discussing a woman responding to her babies need for food - breastfeeding.

 

As Man put it...

 

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a person's personal conviction that covers be worn when feeding. I also see nothing wrong with mothers who choose to feed without covers. I don't believe it's a wise decision, but that doesn't make it wrong.

This is in red is where discernment comes into play IMO. But also grace, love, patience, long-suffering, kindness, gentleness, self-control...

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

In the frame work of the discussion your post cited the legality- indicating it was ok if the law said so! God covered their nakedness did He not?

You seem to be agreeing with the law in this yet I do not -as- naked is naked period no matter the wrangling! The pressing of the point is the extreme

that I gave ... as nakedness was not acceptable by God so also the practice of homesexuality- but the law is saying other now isn't it?  Love, Steven

[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. 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. 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?

 

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?

[Guest]

What Ninhao, I see you reading this, lol.

[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.

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

 

naked is naked and just because the law says its ok does that mean it is? God covered the nakedness in the very beginning and that

hasn't changed! If the law says homosexuality is ok - is it...  Love, Steven

 

Steven, you've hit on the crux of the matter.  Just because it's legal doesn't make it something most people want to see while dining....or anywhere really.  Mothers who feel it's okay to do this have no modesty, IMO. 

 

 

Are you referring to a mother breastfeeding her baby period or are you saying a mother breastfeeding uncovered?

 

God bless,

GE

 

GE that's kind of obvious isn't it...

 

 

Hey brother I spent 50 to 60 posts talking with Man about this very issue. We actually agreed on the basics (women can breastfeed) just disagreed on the specifics (Man thinks it's good to use a cover to be modest and I think a woman can take or leave the cover while still being modest). Lol. I'd rather just ask MG the question up front and not spend so much time going around in circles. The only way I can know what she means which didn't seem clear to me is asking directly to clarify. Do you see?

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

naked is naked and just because the law says its ok does that mean it is? God covered the nakedness in the very beginning and that hasn't changed! If the law says homosexuality is ok - is it...  Love, Steven

 

A mother can nurse her child covered in a modest or immodest fashion. Yet again, a woman can nurse her child without being covered in a modest or immodest fashion. But everyone is entitled to their opinions and views.

We're not discussing homosexuality brother. We're discussing a woman responding to her babies need for food - breastfeeding.

 

As Man put it...

 

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a person's personal conviction that covers be worn when feeding. I also see nothing wrong with mothers who choose to feed without covers. I don't believe it's a wise decision, but that doesn't make it wrong.

This is in red is where discernment comes into play IMO. But also grace, love, patience, long-suffering, kindness, gentleness, self-control...

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

In the frame work of the discussion your post cited the legality- indicating it was ok if the law said so! God covered their nakedness did He not?

You seem to be agreeing with the law in this yet I do not -as- naked is naked period no matter the wrangling! The pressing of the point is the extreme

that I gave ... as nakedness was not acceptable by God so also the practice of homesexuality- but the law is saying other now isn't it?  Love, Steven

 

 

Enoob this is the thing - I don't see breastfeeding without a cover as naked or indicent. Which passage are you referring to here?

Genesis 2:18-25?

Genesis 3: 8-13, 21?

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

 

Couldn't have said it better myself Ninhao.

[GoldenEagle]

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.

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? 

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.

 

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?  

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

<sigh>

Well there it is. My 2 cents.

 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

I think regarding Modesty Nebula has a great example...

 

 

There was a song that came out back in the 70's: "And they'll know we are Christians by our love."

 

I've often marveled, though, at how this principle never seemed to manifest itself in the Body of Christ.

 

Rather, it has seemed:  "And they'll know we are Christians by our obsession with sin."

 

It's like a problem I have. For some reason, I got into the habit of pinching the zits on my face. It turned into an addiction where I feel better from squeezing oil out of my face. So I look for zits and blackheads and any potential pocket of oil to squeeze out. So what that it damages my face, I'm getting the nasty oil out!

 

This seems to be what we are like as the body of Christ. We don't see the beauty of the face, we see the nasty zits and we look close up for the nasty oil because it feels so good to eliminate it. And then we believe that eliminating the oil is love, even though it leaves behind wounds and swollen tissue, rather than believing love is covering over the zit or treat it in a way that brings healing in its own time and way.

 

 

This is the heart of the matter: Why do we feel like elminating the oil (being judgemental towards nursing mothers in this case saying she's immodest if she doesn't cover up, etc) is love and forget the wounds and swollen tissue (Jennifer was very saddened by the way she was treated)? Why don't we give people more love and grace?

 

God bless,

GE

[enoob57]

 

 

 

naked is naked and just because the law says its ok does that mean it is? God covered the nakedness in the very beginning and that hasn't changed! If the law says homosexuality is ok - is it...  Love, Steven

 

A mother can nurse her child covered in a modest or immodest fashion. Yet again, a woman can nurse her child without being covered in a modest or immodest fashion. But everyone is entitled to their opinions and views.

We're not discussing homosexuality brother. We're discussing a woman responding to her babies need for food - breastfeeding.

 

As Man put it...

 

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a person's personal conviction that covers be worn when feeding. I also see nothing wrong with mothers who choose to feed without covers. I don't believe it's a wise decision, but that doesn't make it wrong.

This is in red is where discernment comes into play IMO. But also grace, love, patience, long-suffering, kindness, gentleness, self-control...

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

In the frame work of the discussion your post cited the legality- indicating it was ok if the law said so! God covered their nakedness did He not?

You seem to be agreeing with the law in this yet I do not -as- naked is naked period no matter the wrangling! The pressing of the point is the extreme

that I gave ... as nakedness was not acceptable by God so also the practice of homesexuality- but the law is saying other now isn't it?  Love, Steven

 

 

Enoob this is the thing - I don't see breastfeeding without a cover as naked or indicent. Which passage are you referring to here?

Genesis 2:18-25?

Genesis 3: 8-13, 21?

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

 

Couldn't have said it better myself Ninhao.

 

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