Chick-fil-A manager shames nursing mom

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

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

 

 

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!

 

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

 

Wow that's a lot of exclamation points brother...

 

It has already been established that a woman who is not using a blanket can still cover herself when breastfeeding. Take Firestorm's example.

 

The issue here is that a woman can still be modest while nursing... Yet do so without a blanket. She can make use of her clothes and the baby to cover herself.

 

But brother if you think that a blanket is still necessary for modesty that is fine. All I ask is that we be careful when saying something is "God's way" or "in the Bible" when the principle may be there but the literal command is not. I guess this has been my biggest struggle in this discussion.

 

As I've said before the % of women who actually WANT to expose their breasts is very small. But regarding pornography I think TR had a very good perspective as to the deviant behavior of people.

 

 

I don't think that altering our lives to avoid what societies worst deviants do is reasonable or leads to a very good quality of life.  The shoe camera, for example, might make someone paranoid about ever wearing dresses or skirts in public.  Then there's the hidden camera's in public toilets, are women to never use a public rest room to avoid these?  If someone is lustful enough to go around with a hidden camera, looking for opportunities to catch unsuspecting women in compromising situations, then it is not the woman who is causing temptation - but rather it is the man who brings temptation with him and is looking for sexual invitations where none has been offered.  The same is true of any man who molests or rapes a woman.  They have not been invited in any way, not by action, by words, or by the clothing of the woman.  They are predators.  Pepper-spray to the eyes!

 

 

Thoughts?

 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

For clarification I'm just discussing the subject. This isn't a salvation issue. I do find it a good subject where we can perhaps learn to see others perspectives and give each other more grace. We can agree to disagree and that's okay.

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

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.

 

 

If a restaurant were to discriminate against breastfeeding mothers there would be an uproar. My point is it's funny (or sad?) how this never comes up with mothers who are using bottles and/or formula to nurture their children. At least in the U.S. that is.

 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

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.

 

 

I think this in bold is a good perspective Ome.

[GoldenEagle]

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.

 

Exactly in bold. Lol.

[other one]

 

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.

 

Exactly in bold. Lol.

 

agreed

[GoldenEagle]

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

 

For clarification what do you mean by uncovered? Do you mean using a blanket for example?

Regarding the CFA... This isn't the only company that has gotten a bad report for handling breastfeeding in the wrong way... Check this out too:

 

[Prodigalson123]

I have no problem with a blanket, or a garment that opens so expose as little as possible of the mothers breast. The Greek word for "modesty" is euschēmosynē which is defined as 

 

1) charm or elegance of figure, external beauty, decorum, modesty, seemliness

a) of external charm, comeliness

The idea of being "elegant" and having decorum is an integral part of this. The "idea" or concept that you don't want to offend or put another brother/sister in a situation of discomfort/alarm/offense should be enough for a Christian to understand that many people have different levels of comfort regarding public nudity, for whatever reason. Swimming certainly isn't a sexual activity, but I don't want an eyeful then either. The mother should be sensitive enough to what is appropriate in public,and changing cultural morays aren't the yardstick, rather scripture should be. As to "handling it the wrong way" that is an opinion that is formed by the culture, not objective truth.

[The_Patriot21]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

If a restaurant were to discriminate against breastfeeding mothers there would be an uproar. My point is it's funny (or sad?) how this never comes up with mothers who are using bottles and/or formula to nurture their children. At least in the U.S. that is.

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

well, that maybe-and if they were legitmatly discriminating against breast feeding mothers, then people have the right to be in an uproar. Im not against that in the slightest, Im just against any kind of legal/government interference. With that being said, from all appearances, this looks like a isolated incident-not something that chic-fil-A makes policy. Which means theres the possibility were not getting the full story-the lady may have been a little less then discrete, theres the possibility, it was someone with a problem with chic-fil-A as was already pointed out and wanting to make a point-its also a possibility a local manager simply made a mistake. Theres nothing to suggest that this is a policy of chic-fil-A to discriminate against nursing moms.

[MorningGlory]

 

Well, that maybe-and if they were legitmatly discriminating against breast feeding mothers, then people have the right to be in an uproar. Im not against that in the slightest, Im just against any kind of legal/government interference. With that being said, from all appearances, this looks like a isolated incident-not something that chic-fil-A makes policy. Which means theres the possibility were not getting the full story-the lady may have been a little less then discrete, theres the possibility, it was someone with a problem with chic-fil-A as was already pointed out and wanting to make a point-its also a possibility a local manager simply made a mistake. Theres nothing to suggest that this is a policy of chic-fil-A to discriminate against nursing moms.

 

 

 

It certainly is the right of any business to refuse service to ANYONE.  That's also the law.  If these women who absolutely must nurse in public would use a little common sense (i;e., understand that not everyone is just tickled pink by seeing them nurse in public) and exhibit enough modesty to separate themselves from farm animals, then there would be no problem, would there?