"She was not denied service. There appears to be no prejudice laid against her."

True. Not only was she not denied service, the resturant did not prevent her from breastfeeding nor did it ask her to stop. Now if the resturant had a "no breastfeeding allowed" sign in the window and then a woman came in and breastfed AND they didn't serve her AND stopped her from breasfeeding AND they kicked her out, then you might be able to start to comparing it to Civil Rights era stuff. To try and compare it to that while extending the right to breastfeed in public to the "right" not to be "criticized" by management is absurd.

Did I just stumble upon a Something Awful GBS thread?

I am a mother of one and about to be a mother of two, and I must say, I'm not a fan of breastfeeding in public. All of my friends were breastfeeders, whereas I was not (and won't be with baby #2, either), and over the years, I have grown tired of watching them all flop their breasts out at my house (like at the dinnertable) and in public, like it's no big deal. I also hate the fact that when there's a naked boob out and people end up staring, the women get offended. I'm sorry - when someone's half naked in front of me, my reaction is usually to stare at them. I guess my response is this - if you want to breastfeed in public, you should totally expect people to look at you with the same look they'd give someone streaking naked down the street, and please excuse those of us who don't want to look at your boobs while we are trying to eat!

Also, it is really frustrating to be viewed negatively by some because I don't want to breastfeed. I actually had a friend tell me "Well, breastfeeding allowed my daughter and I to form a closer, more special bond" and I could tell she wanted to end the sentence with "unlike you and your child, since you didn't breastfeed him". Just because I don't feel like acting like a Jersey cow doesn't mean I don't love my children!

"Why couldn't you have phrased it that way the first time around?"

I was probably striving for emotional appeal and parallelism. I am a writer and not logician.

Now don't go taking me to task for using pathos. Pathos and logos are both allowed are both allowed in argument and pathos is sometimes actually superior in narrative. Persuasion is the name of the game. ;-)

Please read my post to below.

Discrimination law as it relates to race, sex, and disability discrimination has many similarities. Among them are things about hostile environments. For instance, if wait staff distress a person by their comments and their comments could be deemed discriminatory, then the business could be sued.

For instance, if I had a service animal and you said to me. "Some people are complaining because your dog is drooling, could you please make him be discreet about drooling," this could be construed as a form of discriminatory harassment. Since the patron must have the dog and since dogs naturally drool, the patron has little control over the situation.

In the case of nursing. Since the baby must find the nipple and nipple flash could be inevitable sometimes when mothers are trying to position their clothes, their breasts, and the baby, comments about discretion could be discriminatory. You cannot discriminate by commenting against a nursing mother simply because she does not juggle all these matters well.

Just as you cannot discriminate against the disabled patron by commenting on the dog drooling.

I understand that many people do not understand about discrimination law, but it is important that businesses teacher managers and other personnel about it. It is in their best interest to do so.

Now to explain a little more: If the dog does not just drool but growls and snaps at other customers, the manager is fully within her rights to ask that the dog be taken out of the business.

If the nursing mother walks into the establishment absolutely topless or if she playfully wiggles her breast under a customer's nose, then the manager is fully within his rights to ask the mother to leave.

Really, what you have are sometimes competing interests. For instance, a person need not disclose a disability to an interviewer in order to become employed. Once employed, the disabled person has a right to ask for reasonable accomodation if needed. For instance, a person with back problems has a right to ask for a more comfortable chair. However, if lifting heavy boxes was mentioned in the job description as an essential part of the job, the person with the back disability cannot then claim that disability exempts him from lifting boxes.

That is why you see such detailed job descriptions sometimes. Employers are trying to protect their interest AND comply with the law. It is against the law to ask someone about disability in a job interview.

You quoted me as saying: war on women's bodies...I believe I said the war over women's bodies.

That's a distinction without a difference. Talk about nitpicking! But OK, point taken, perhaps we could both engage in less semantic hairsplitting.

In your eagerness to differentiate yourself from me and my dreaded stance on feminism

Dreaded stance? Oh, come now. I think earlier in this thread, in a reply to one of the various "Anonymous" posters, I came to your defense and said that most of what you wrote I found quite reasonable. Occasionally, however, you veer a bit into the hyperbolic. You pushed my buttons with the "sex objects" post because I felt your use of the term was careless and overbroad and was saddled with some unwelcome connotations.

Your rephrasing of your point in your last post to me was most welcome and refreshing. It makes sense and I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. My question is: Why couldn't you have phrased it that way the first time around?