Breastfeeding Moms Protest Johnny Rockets

Public breastfeeding is completely legal in Kentucky, but don’t try telling that to the manager of the Johnny Rockets in Newport, where a nursing mother was given the boot for refusing to stop feeding her child when directed to do so by the manager.

According to the mom, she went out onto the Johny Rockets patio to feed her 6-month-old daughter. Minutes later, the manager told her she would have to do her breastfeeding out on a public bench.

But, per Kentucky law, a nursing mom can “breastfeed her baby or express breast milk in any public or private location.” The woman pointed this fact out to the manager, who told her she could do her feeding in the bathroom if she wanted.

The incident brought protesters to the Johnny Rockets with signs reading things like “Johnny Rockets is not a family restaurant” and “No, I will not feed my baby in your bathroom.”

Says the ticked-off mom:

I just want people to know there is a law, and whether or not they personally feel comfortable with breast-feeding in public, or whether they bottle-feed or breast-feed or however they choose to raise their families, there is a law that protects mothers’ rights to nurse in public.

Kentucky is one of 44 states with laws permitting breastfeeding in any public or private location. Additionally, the Bluegrass State is also one of 28 states that has a law declaring that breastfeeding can not be considered an act of public indecency.

For all the various state laws on breastfeeding, check out this helpful page.

Kentucky breast feeding mom asked to leave Johnny Rocket’s restaurant [KSDK.com]

Thanks to Angie for the tip!

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Abradax says:

    She should have been kicked out, she brought outside food into the restaraunt!

  2. apd09 says:

    At the chance of being flamed by people, I kind of agree with this to an extent. I understand it is a law to respect the right of mothers to feed in public, but to me public is defined by common ground owned by the state for general public use. A restaurant is private property that is running a business. The restaurant must abide my laws in terms of cleanliness, discrimination etc… but they also have the ability to post signs saying no shirt, no shoes, no service. They are allowed to decide whom they serve.

    I know I would not want to be out to eat and have a woman whip them out to feed. If she is using a smock or something like that to try to conceal the feeding that might be OK, I guess it depends on the way with which she was doing it.

    But I am still on the side that places should be able to have general rules or decency especially eating establishments and they should be able to ask women to not breast feed in the place.

    • HowdyHowdyHowdy says:

      I guess I’m just wondering why breastfeeding is uncomfortable for you? Is it the breasts themselves?

      • AI says:

        It doesn’t make me any more uncomfortable than seeing a shirtless guy at Johnny Rockets……if that answers you question.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          Mmmm. Hot shirtless guy at Johnny Rockets. Now that is what I’d call dinner.

      • Alvis says:

        It’s the moms, as much as the breasts. The number of American women whose breasts are attractive to look at are exceedingly small. The number that are gross-looking, higher than I’m comfortable with.

        • johnrhoward says:

          And the number of American men and women whose faces are attractive to look at (especially when they’re stuffing them with food) is also exceedingly small. However, the breatfeeding woman isn’t complaing about all the ugly people she has to see in Johnny Rockets.

          My advice to anyone who is offended at having to watch a woman feed her baby would be don’t watch it. And if you’re such a tool that you can’t even stand to have it in your peripheral vision without getting upset, then I would suggest that the problem is more yours than anyone else’s.

          • KittensRCute! says:

            i still say its perfect natural to take a dump, so why cant i take a dump right there at the table at jonny rockets. its non sexual and natural. only someone who is uncivilized would have a problem with such a natural and nonsexual act.

            i want the right to take a dump right at the jonny rockets dinner table!!!

            • Dalsnsetters says:

              It’s also non-sanitary and frigging smelly and does absolutely nothing to sustain life, unless you plan on eating it yourself.

              If I saw you pull that nonsense, I’d first call the cops then shoot you before you finished said dump. You are a disgusting human being if you cannot see the difference between breast milk being used to feed a baby and you taking a dump on a table. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to call you a human.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              Go ahead. shit where you eat. That’s real smart, not to mention totally attractive to the opposite sex. I’m guessing you won’t be getting any hot dates any time soon.

    • AI says:

      I think Hooters should find a way to apply this law. I’ll totally breastfeed there.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      The law isn’t just breastfeeding in public, it’s breastfeeding in any public or private location.

      http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14389

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        Ky. Rev. Stat. § 211-755 (2006) permits a mother to breastfeed her baby or express breast milk in any public or private location. Requires that breastfeeding may not be considered an act of public indecency, indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching or obscenity. Prohibits a municipality from enacting an ordinance that prohibits or restricts breastfeeding in a public or private place. (SB 106)

        • ColHapablap says:

          I’m curious, though, because the phrasing of that sounds like private locations are’t compelled to allow this, simply that municipalities can’t legally prevent women from breastfeeding. Private establishments can kick people out for lots of reasons that aren’t against the law.

          • Draygonia says:

            Yeah, but ethically there is no problem with this! If someone doesn’t want to deal business with someone else, that is perfectly fine! Kick her out! She can go somewhere else! Seriously, do you need to breastfeed your baby RIGHT NOW? IN THE RESTAURANT? No, you don’t. Move along people… Just another controlling government story.

            And to avoid flames, anyone with half a brain knows that if a business does not want to do business with someone else for any reason, so be it. Perhaps people should take a class on ethics. Did that restaurant hit her? Threaten her? steal from her? Effect her negatively? Nope. They asked her to leave because of what she was doing. She suffered no harm and can easily take her money elsewhere to a less discriminatory establishment.

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              “And to avoid flames, anyone with half a brain knows that if a business does not want to do business with someone else for any reason, so be it.”

              Please read a book on legal theory that dates to after 1968 before making incorrect blanket statements. Thank you.

            • whogots is "not computer knowledgeable" says:

              Uh, have you ever met a nursing baby? Ever?

              A small baby does not give you adequate warning to get out of a table-service restaurant before it throws a fit. I’d much rather be surrounded by bare breasts than screeching mini-demons.

              • pantheonoutcast says:

                Then if you are a mother of a nursing baby, stay out of table-service restaurants until your child is old enough to hold a fork, or you have brought along enough pre-pumped breast milk to supply the child’s nutritional needs.

                The world should not have to accommodate you or your child’s need for instant gratification.

              • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

                I vote that breastfeeding women let their infants cry the entire meal since so many people are so sensitive to the whole BF thing. When the mom is done with said meal, then she can take the screaming baby somewhere else to feed it. At least no one would have to see little to no skin while they are eating.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              I guess if they don’t mind the wrath of breast feeding women, the incredibly negative publicity and losing many, many customers then they should just have at kicking out out a breast feeding woman.

        • nova3930 says:

          I don’t have a dog in this fight because I don’t really give a damn but the wording of the statute presents an interesting legal issue.

          Yes “breastfeeding may not be considered an act of public indecency, indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching or obscenity” but that doesn’t absolve anyone of trespassing should they tell you to GTFO and you refuse.

          Otherwise the implications are you could meander onto my front lawn to breast feed and I couldn’t do anything about it because as soon as you’re feeding the kid, you’re protected from anything and everything….

          • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

            It does not present an interesting legal issue because “places of public accommodation,” or however Kentucky opts to phrase the statute, is a well-established idea in the law with an extensive history of litigating dating to the Civil Rights Era.

            But I LOVE how people feel free to just make up legal interpretations because they don’t like seeing women breastfeeding babies!

            • ogsoleysol says:

              IANAL, but I think that the issue with this analysis is that “breastfeeders” are not a protected class under Federal (or likely State) Civil Rights Law. A business, for example, would be well within their rights to refuse service to anyone with a normal speaking voice louder than 80dB regardless of their status as a “place of public accommodation.”

              That said, in this case the business owner is not seeking to exclude a class of people at all but, rather, seeking to preclude a certain activity within his place of business. That is, of course, unless you argue that the business owner is seeking to exclude the class of people that consists of those women who would breastfeed in open view inside of his restaurant, which is almost certainly not a legally protected class.

              I happen to agree that women should be permitted to breastfeed in public and even in restaurants, but I think that you’re letting your support for the underlying action cloud your legal analysis and being a bit overzealous in your condemnation of uninformed “legal” opinions.

              • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                “IANAL, but I think that the issue with this analysis is that “breastfeeders” are not a protected class under Federal (or likely State) Civil Rights Law.”

                You’re correct about this, however:

                “That said, in this case the business owner is not seeking to exclude a class of people at all but, rather, seeking to preclude a certain activity within his place of business.”

                THAT ACTIVITY is specifically protected by this law, using language (“place of public accommodation”) that is taken from civil rights laws and has a clear and well-litigated meaning. That was my point.

                • ogsoleysol says:

                  Fair enough, but the statute doesn’t actually say “place of public accommodation” but, rather “public or private location where the mother [and child] is/are otherwise authorized to be.” While I recognize that you also implicitly admitted this above with “or however Kentucky chooses to phrase it,”

                  I’m not sure that the meaning of this is quite as well litigated. In fact, based on my cursory searching, this is the only time that the language “otherwise authorized to be” appears in Kentucky statutes and it’s almost certainly not the same language used in § 1983 and other Federal Civil Rights legislation.

                  Based on a quick reading of the statute, my inclination is obviously that this statute was intended to explicitly permit women to breastfeed anywhere, but in my opinion, it is still unclear on the face of the statute whether it actually abridges the rights of business owners to refuse service. The issue doesn’t appear to have been litigated at any point and I’m not certain that I’m invested enough to research where and how the rights of private business owners are defined in the law for the purposes of analysis regarding their rights and the “notwithstanding any other provision of the law” clause in this statute.

                  Repeated CYA disclaimer: IANAL

                  • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                    “in my opinion, it is still unclear on the face of the statute whether it actually abridges the rights of business owners to refuse service.”

                    I AM a lawyer, and let me tell you: It does. You can read up a little more on the comparative state laws at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14389 if you’re particularly interested. I have seen cases about this litigated at the circuit court level and there is no lack of clarity about interpreting the statute at all, at least in my state. (Which, admittedly, is not Kentucky. But this is pretty clear and universal language in U.S. law.)

                    • ogsoleysol says:

                      I remembered, from past comments, that you are a lawyer, so I entered into this discussion advisedly. That said, I had read through the link that you provided earlier and I must suggest based on experience that the frequent recurrence of the “otherwise authorized to be” language is not evidence of any legal consensus of its meaning but, rather, evidence that all of these states passed legislation based on the same model legislation proposed by the same lobbying organizations.

                      Further, I can find caselaw on this issue from only two states: LA and FL. LA is unique in that it has express provisions in its human rights law prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations against mothers for breastfeeding. The FL case, based on language similar to the statute in question here, never reached the merits. So, I’d be very interested in whatever information you could provide me regarding the case that you saw argued or any other information you have on the matter. (And, for the record, I mean this in all seriousness…)

                    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                      It was a pretty dull case, to be honest — and of course you have to get to at least the appellate court for it to land in the case law books, and these statutes are so clear (to lawyers, anyway) that they don’t really get a lot of appeals. (As a side note, many states include some information about the intent of the law and its language in their official reporters, which can be used by the courts in any confusion, and which might help clarify their intent with the language. My husband uses them a lot in his practice, but I don’t, so I’m not very good at finding stuff in them.)

                      I became aware of the case through other female lawyers; it was in a nearby state circuit, in a more rural area, some restaurant I’d never heard of (some local place) had told a woman (who was pretty lactivist) that she couldn’t breastfeed. She explained she had a right to breastfeed, the restaurant manager told her she couldn’t, so she left. She wrote a letter to the restaurant outlining the law. The restaurant told her to shove it, more or less, because they were a private business and could refuse service to anyone they chose, so she brought a lawsuit pro se. The court informed the restaurant that it did, in fact, have to let her breastfeed in their restaurant and issued an injunction saying they had to do so, and then ordered the restaurant to pay her court costs (somewhere south of $500). The restaurant complied. It wasn’t very exciting. :)

                      I’m loosely aware of another case — Illinois provides an exemption for places of religious worship, that women should follow the norms of that religion. Of course that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and there’s a case that’s pending (or perhaps was pending and disappeared, I’m not sure) where a woman of religion X was breastfeeding in her church and the pastor of church X disagreed with the interpretation of religion X’s norms on breastfeeding. I rather think that’s the sort of dispute that a religion’s own authority structure should settle, though; the secular courts don’t seem particularly competent to mediate that particular dispute.

                      I’d say 99% of the time, a letter to the management of the place results in a quick resolution, with the establishment apologizing and informing employees about the law. Most people don’t act from malice, just ignorance. (This is also why the case I’m aware of involved a local restaurant, I’d bet — if Chili’s did that, you can bet their corporate lawyers would be down on the local joint like a ton of bricks!)

                    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                      Last post, promise, then I have to go to a meeting. :) I also always make sure to read law review and law magazine articles on the topic, since I think it’s interesting. Most of the cases I’ve READ about are pretty similar … a local place with no corporate parent ends up with an injunction or a fine. The arguments the places make are pretty much the same — it’s indecent, we can deny service to anyone we want, my patrons don’t want to look at breasts — but they never go anywhere, because these statutes are pretty clear.

                      I do know a guy who does legal work for a strip club, and the strip club’s owner wanted to fight the law on the grounds that his patrons didn’t want to see WORKING breasts when they came to see PLAYING breasts. While that’s a more honest argument than most, my friend-who-is-his-lawyer told him it was best not to attempt it unless he was being overrun by nursing mothers — not your usual strip club clientele. (The strip club had not actually had any nursing mothers in it, the owner just objected on principle.)

                    • psm321 says:

                      You forgot to tell me that you’re not my lawyer and that this post is not legal advice :-P

                  • Not Given says:

                    Whether they are allowed to refuse service or not, any business that attempts to kick out a breast feeding mother and child is likely to find themselves on the 6 o’clock news the very next evening with about 30 sets of breastfeeding moms and babies in their establishment. Probably not the outcome the business was hoping for.

        • macruadhi says:

          (@kb01, this is in reply to state code you posted, not to negate your post) So, now that we have read the law and If I were the manager of said store and I didn’t want the woman feeding her child in may store, I would just have one of my employees grab her breast(s) while touching his penis/her vagina. Then there would be lewd touching and she could be thrown out, on-her-ear, boobs a-flapping in the breeze on the way out the door.

          To all those breastfeeding in public haters, strategy and knowledge of the law is your friend.

      • jeffjohnvol says:

        A brief scan of that link seems to indicate that the legislation you linked to applies to employees, not customers.

    • jeffjohnvol says:

      Agreed. I wouldn’t disallow it in my business, but a business should be allowed to establish what customers can and cannot do on their private property.

      A store can say handguns not allowed, or can insist on shirt and shoes. If the state says you have to allow it, thats BS and the supreme court would back that point of view. Or at least until President Oblahblah puts a bunch of liberal weenies on the court.

      • ColHapablap says:

        Is that you, Rand Paul?

      • Kilawat12 says:

        And there goes the name calling. You would probably also so less federal government but then when something like this happens you tell the government to step in and do something to limit the states rights, hypocrite.

        • Limewater says:

          You just made up a possible act of hypocrisy that the poster might or might not commit, assumed an outcome, and then name-called based on your assumption about your own hypothetical. That’s so disgusting that I can’t help but get onboard.

          You would probably roast a newborn baby on a spit and eat it, wouldn’t you? Cannibal.

        • jeffjohnvol says:

          I disagree with your point of view, but I admire your icon.

          Not wanting anyone’s point of view forced upon them is not being a hypocrite.

          and yes, I am a libertarian.

    • SkokieGuy says:

      Your post reveals much about you as opposed to women who breastfeed. “whip them out” “covering” “decency”

      There is absolutely nothing indecent about a woman feeding her child. It is the most innocent and natural activity humans engage in. The only sexual or moral connotations are those in the minds of the viewer. Why are you watching this activity occur. If you see a woman with a child nursing (and most women do cover up, the ‘decent’ thing is for YOU to look away and avoid embarrassing the mother by your (inappropriate) staring. Would you stare at a parent who had to hand feed a handicapped child? A nurse feeding the elderly?

      Why does the sustaining of life cause you to feel you are viewing an indecent act? Perhaps you have the sexuality of a 6 year old boy?

      • AI says:

        There is nothing unnatural or indecent about me whipping out my dick and taking a piss on the floor either. Peeing is a non-sexual and required natural act, just like breast feeding. Except those assholes at Johnny Rockets make me take it to a room in the back, which is also exactly what they asked this woman to do.

        • coconutmellie says:

          I completely agree with you here (and I am in support of public breastfeeding), but the only rub is that your pee would presumably go on the floor and breast milk goes in someone’s mouth- yum!

          I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to piss all over your nearest Johnny Rockets – why not? I guess the difference is the extrement vs. food issue. And the… mess issue.

        • gtrgod01 says:

          ….except for the part what you are doing is excreting bodily waste and what the mother is doing is giving nourishment to a child. Yeah but they are totally the same right? Go ahead and protest that if you want….

          • Liam Kinkaid says:

            I’m absolutely certain that I could find someone that would drink directly from my spigot, if I were into that sort of thing. So this would be okay in public?

            • gtrgod01 says:

              Perhaps if you were to get some scientific data as to how your piss could provide the necessary nutrients and antibodies to the recipient that a mothers milk does for the nursing child you might win some people over…..until then the person drinking from your “spigot” is just a freak that likes golden showers.

              • Liam Kinkaid says:

                Wow, look at those goalposts move! First it was nourishment, now it’s antibodies. I propose we test all mother’s milk for those antibodies. If they’re missing some, or they’re not present in the correct quantities, they don’t get to breastfeed in public.

                • gtrgod01 says:

                  seriously? did you not know that breast milk contains antibodies from the mother that help prevent infection in the child until it’s immune system is up to speed? Perhaps you need to read up on the subject before commenting….

                  • Liam Kinkaid says:

                    Perhaps you shouldn’t change your criteria. You said nourishment. My #1 can provide nourishment. Therefore, according to what you said before you moved the goalposts, it should be acceptable to feed using my natural bodily processes.

                    • dolemite says:

                      Some people state drinking your own urine helps your body build it’s immune system. Almost as good as antibodies!

                    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

                      It’s got ELECTROLYTES!

                    • gtrgod01 says:

                      +1 for the Idiocracy quote

                    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

                      Hey, if you want to drink your own piss, have at it. I think you’ll have a bit of trouble finding/keeping a mate or spouse that way, but if it floats your boat, feel free to whip out your penis, aim it at your mouth and enjoy the nutritive values of your own urine.

                    • Liam Kinkaid says:

                      So what you’re saying is that a woman drinking from her own breast is exactly the same as if she were breastfeeding a baby and it would carry no consequences if she were to do that in public.

                    • palfas says:

                      I’m pretty sure that would be covered under current laws as a lewd act.

                      You may disagree and think that breast feeding is lewd, but the law doesn’t and neither does nature.

                  • JCH4H says:

                    Perhaps, you should just use a breast pump and bring a bottle out the the public place you are at…… I call breast feeding in public – poor planning on mommy’s part.

              • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

                Don’t know about you, but when I’m tripping out on shrooms, my urine definitely provides valuable psychoactive substances.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              Have you ever been to Germany? I don’t think you’d have any problem finding someone to do that there.

          • AI says:

            They are both relatively hygienic fluids being secreted by the body for perfectly natural and necessary purposes. The only difference between a mother’s milk a urine is time. You make one sound bad with your wording ‘excreting waste’ vs ‘nourishment to a child’, but that could easily be swapped with ‘relieving pressure’ vs ‘willfully supplying fuel to a parasite’. It’s all spin.

            • gtrgod01 says:

              it’s all spin? Go ahead and feed your kid urine and i’ll feed mine breast milk…..see which one develops and which one dies. But again…..it’s all just spin right?

              At some point you should realize your argument is pretty pointless and doesn’t compare to feeding a child breast milk.

        • myrna_minkoff says:

          I agree with you … but now all the mommies are going to tell you that expressing one bodily fluid is “different/special” then expressing another, and therefore, you hate women.

        • KittensRCute! says:

          i agree. i understand women need to breast feed, but but they dont need to make a public beep show out of it. i support a womans right to breast feed. i just also support my right to not have to watch it.

          • SunnyLea says:

            1) “Beep show” ?

            2) “Right not to watch it”? Where exactly is that one in the constitution?

        • Jevia says:

          Seriously? Your pee isn’t given nutrition to another human being. The reason breastfeeding is allowed is because its FEEDING A BABY.

          Now if you want to take your lunch and go eat it in the bathroom, that is exactly what Johnny Rockets is suggesting.

          • AI says:
            • gtrgod01 says:

              I think the key to that link is it says you should drink/use your OWN urine…….not some other persons. So your urine might be good for YOU but your urine would NOT be good for someone else….

          • Rachacha says:

            “Seriously? Your pee isn’t given nutrition to another human being.”

            You Obviously don’t watch the Discovery Channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIYNvwXD0Q

            Now hopefully if you were sitting in a restaurant one would not need to resort to drinking urine to survive, but you get my point.

            I am ducking out of this conversation as quickly as I came in.

            Hey Consumerist editors, Can you write an article about how aborted fetuses should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon while breastfeeding in a public location. I suspect that such a story would raise quite the stir. :-)

            • psm321 says:

              Don’t forget walking out of the store without getting their receipt checked

              • psm321 says:

                While carrying shoplifted bottled water in a plastic grocery bag, and is then chased after against store policy by a security guard who is subsequently fired

          • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

            Yes, if it is okay for a mom feeding a baby to go sit on a dirty toilet while her infant (who is more susceptible to dirt and germs) eats, then surely those who are so offended by wouldn’t mind going in their themselves to dine a la crapper.

        • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

          +!

        • cybrczch says:

          Nope, your whipping your dick out is just like breastfeeding. In both cases, nothing to see.

        • Dalsnsetters says:

          However, there is *plenty* illegal about it. Since you think you are all that and a bag of chips, go to your congressperson and lobby them to make it legal for you to whip it out in public and piss all over the floor.

          There is a LAW governing breastfeeding in public–you may not like it or agree with it, but there is a law that says it’s okay.

          Conversely, there is a LAW governing your whipping out Mr. Happy and pissing all over the floor. Since you seem to think that is okay, I suggest the next time you see someone breastfeeding in public you try *your* idea and piss on the floor.

          Be sure to let us know what jail cell you are in so we can come and laugh at you.

          • AI says:

            Actually, where I’m from, public urination is legal. The city provides open air urinals downtown and in other areas. What do you think of that? Feel free to randomly capitalize certain words to tell me how you really feel.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              You know, if the urinal was pretty clean and people were subtle about it, I probably wouldn’t care that much. Most men also are inconspicuous about peeing. I grew up in the country and have been with guys who stopped on the side of the road to take a leak and I never once was offended or grossed out by it. The gawd awful smell of male urine my biggest complaint. Guys’ piss really smells.

              Interestingly enough, breast milk is pretty much unscented and doesn’t smell offensive in any way. Breast feeding moms don’t usually spray their breast milk onto the floor and get it all over the place either. And, if a woman is exclusively breastfeeding their baby’s crap is almost odorless.

            • Southern says:

              I’ve done some digging, and I can find no place in the 50 United States where public urination is legal (although it is legal in some places in Japan and Germany, interestingly enough, and Amsterdam even has the “public urinals” you may be referring to, although even those are somewhat hidden from view (pics here: http://www.amsterdamlogue.com/urinals-in-amsterdam-an-unusual-tourist-attraction-of-sorts.html ).

              So unless you’re referring to somewhere in the United States, your argument about public urination is completely irrelevant, as this discussion focuses on the laws in the United States.

              And if you are referring to some place in the United States, citation please.

              • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

                been to amsterdam and from the conversations i had with locals and what i witnessed personally, the open air urinals are an attempt to solve the peeing in the canals problem. they half work. most of the locals use the open air urinals, most of the drunken/high/”doing it because they are on vacation and later want to tell a story about it” tourists still pee in the canals. often onto the houseboats parked in the canals.

              • thisistobehelpful says:

                And in many places now it’s a sex crime that can get you prosecuted as a sex offender and placed on a list. So peeing in public = ruined future in some places. You are honestly supposed to wet yourself if no one will let you use their bathroom.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          Wow, you are comparing an illegal act that involves eliminating human waste to the feeding of an innocent child, which is completely legal in most places?

          I just don’t get why it seems like it is mostly men who are outraged at public breastfeeding. Oh wait, I forgot. Boobs are their play things. Women don’t have a right to do something useful with them.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          The comparison isn’t even close to valid unless women are nursing their child out of their vagina. Penises and vaginas are sex organs. Breasts are merely perceived sex organs and we don’t crap piss or have orgasms out of them.

          If you want to look like a douche and go around pissing on the floor at public restaurant, be my guest.

          • thisistobehelpful says:

            They are seriously not perceived sex organs they are sex organs. Biological facts, breasts are present without having given birth. They are there BEFORE procreation and meant to spur on sexual desire FOR procreation. Actual mammary glands are very very tiny compared to the the fat content of a human breast. This is why we can have have a AAA cup size and consider a woman who is completely flat chested like a man still to have breasts and why she can still breastfeed after giving birth. The fat is what makes up most of a breast. We are the ONLY mammals that have visible breasts outside of lactation and pregnancy. We are the ONLY primates as well. The only evidence that females in other mammal species have breasts is AFTER they have given birth and the skin and nipples are full or stretched and sagging.

            I really, really adore breasts. I adore having them. They ARE a sexual organ, the mammary glands that make up a very tiny percentage of them are the feeding organ. Stop separating sex from breasts. The function of of the breast at that moment is what is or isn’t primarily sexual, not the breast itself. If it weren’t for the evolution of fat placement we wouldn’t have breasts but we’d still have mammary glands. Anthropological fact: t has nothing to do with cultural emphasis on whether or not they are a sexual organ. How sexually repressed has to do with how they are treated. They are a sexual organ IN ALL HUMAN CULTURES.

      • dolemite says:

        Wait, so she is showing boobs in public, and I am indecent because I won’t modify my behavior?

        So…let’s say I’m eating out on the patio, and there are 10 women breastfeeding all around me. Despite the fact I paid for a meal and came out on the patio to have a pleasant dining experience while enjoying the view on the patio, I should stare at my feet the whole time or build a wall of menus so I don’t offend the breast-barers?

        • SkokieGuy says:

          1). I suspecting you have no friends and eat out alone? Most people in a restaurant aren’t staring at other diners, they are looking at the person they are eating with

          2). As many have pointed out, most breast feeding mothers drape a cloth so that little is shown.

          3). I imagine you’ll never travel to a beach in Europe or many other parts of the world where going topless is normal and acceptable. If you do, be sure to build a wall of beach umbrellas around you as clearly you will be unable to look anywhere.

          4). Exactly why does the potential site of a bare breast cause you to not enjoy your meal?

          • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

            People are offended by breasts when it is convenient for them. Many of the men or women complaining here probably don’t get too up in arms over Hooter’s billboards, looking at porn of going to topless bars. But if you dare desexualize a breast, then it is totally offensive and they get up in arms about it.

        • FrugalFreak says:

          I’m a man and it doesn’t bother me in the least. Breastfeeding is a natural necessary act for a mother and child. Heck why complain to see bare breast for a second when some people go to hooters just for this very view while eating.

          Bare breasts makes food taste better!

          I support the mothers. The very act of opposing this is indecent in itself. Just because Johnny Rockets is a business, businesses don’t get to object SIMPLY because they say so.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          No, you should grow the hell up.

          Seriously , have you actually been surrounded by 10 breastfeeding women at at time, all who were being completely inconspicuous about it? I very rarely see one breastfeeding woman at a restaurant, much less 10 women who are surrounding someone while letting it all hang out.

          But, to answer your question, if you did ever encounter this situation, the 10 women who are commiting this horrible, immoral act probably have at least 1 person with them. That makes 20 people on the patio who are not offended by the act of a woman feeding her child. I hardly think that one person should dictate what the other 20 people are doing if it is within their rights that are protected by law. 1 out of 20 people who are offended? Avert your eyes or get the hell up and move buddy. Expecting all of those people to cater to your warped needs is called tyranny of the minority.

          • Rachacha says:

            “…the 10 women who are commiting this horrible, immoral act probably have at least 1 person with them. That makes 20 people on the patio who are not offended by the act of a woman feeding her child.” Rather bold assumption. I have met many men who are scared to death of their female partners who probably if they were offended or embarassed by what their female partner was doing may not express their concerns. Similarly, I am sure that there are many females who might feel uncomfortable if their girlfriend breastfed her child in public.

            Like it or not, in America, the female breast is something that has been perceived as a sexual item, and not an item intended for nourishment. As such, the breast has been very taboo and has been engrained in society that it should be hidden except in the privacy of one’s own home or in a business where one expects to see breasts (on a stage with scantilly clad women). I am not saying this is right or wrong just a fact. Personally, if the mother was attempting to be discrete in the restaurant, I have no problem with it. If the mother was allowing her bare breast to be exposed and was making little or no attempt to cover herself, the restaurant has a right at their discretion to request that the mother change her actions (be more discrete) or relocate. In the business owner’s/managers eyes, they need to look out for the comfort and feelings of their core customers.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              I get embarrassed by men scratching their balls in public. Despite my livid embarrassment, and many other womens’ embarrassment, men don’t seem to care because it is still going on at alarming rates. So, we will can call it even and move on.

              Most of the husbands of my friends would never be embarrassed by their wives discreetly nursing in public. They would also be more than happy to kick the ass of some perverted moron (most likely a man) who was staring at their wife while she was breastfeeding.

              • babaki says:

                if you dont want someone to look, dont do it in public. your man hating rants are bordering on the ridiculous.

                • thisistobehelpful says:

                  Agreed. No matter how sacred you see something as, if you do it completely in view of other people you have no right to complain if they stare. If you don’t want to be looked at, don’t do it around things with eyes.

          • Javin says:

            ” hrdl thnk tht n prsn shld dctt wht th thr ppl r dng…” S ‘m sr w’r n th sm pg hr, yr lgc s tht f prsn s ffndd b wht ppl r dng, tht prsn shld STF, bt f ppl r ffndd b wht prsn s dng, thn ths ppl shld STF. S ppl shld b llwd t “d” wht vr th wnt t “d” rgrdlss f wh’s ffndd. Gt t. Nxt tm s bbs flppd t n pblc, ‘ll gv m wng fw tgs nd gv hr prl ncklc. Hw’s tht snd? mn, t’s ntrl, rght? nd shld b bl t d whtvr wnt n pblc n mttr wh’s ffndd, rght? Tht smn mngd t sld ths nt th lw bks n rdr wtht cnsltng th gnrl pblc s mt pnt. t’s ls hw Mrjn ws md llgl.

      • apd09 says:

        and you have completely missed the tongue in cheek meaning of this statement. Go back and reread it, “I know I would not want to be out to eat and have a woman whip them out to feed. If she is using a smock or something like that to try to conceal the feeding that might be OK, I guess it depends on the way with which she was doing it.” there is a difference between her using a smock to conceal and potentially just lifting up her shirt to feed.
        That was the point, there was no immaturity, so get off your high horse.

        And I can guarantee you that you have never spoke that way to person in public or face to face, so keep on being an internet tough guy.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          Have you ever actually seen a woman whip out her boob, nip and all to feed a child? Because I sure haven’t, and all of my friends were/are breast feeders including myself (I wore special nursing shirts that covered very well and made access quite simple.) Most use a blanket to get their breast prepared for feeding and latching on. They may remove it when the baby is eating and everything is pretty well concealed so that the baby isn’t smothered by the blanket (maybe she should give it to you to those who are offended to put over their head while they eat eat so they won’t be offended.)

          So many people talking about how indecent it is (most bikini clad women at beaches look more offensive), yet it isn’t like women take off their tops and get naked. If they do, they are in an extreme minority. In my 37 years I haven’t witnessed that, ever.

          What it really boils down to is that some people are offended by the IDEA of women BF in public because it desexualizes what men perceive to be their personal sexual toys.

          Seriously people, GROW UP. My seven-year-old isn’t even offended by it (she thinks it’s cool and quite normal) and doesn’t gawk or make a big deal out of it. Surely grown adults (seems like men mostly) can control themselves as well as my small child.

          • Dallas_shopper says:

            If all women breastfed like that, I’d have no issue with it. But I have seen women “whip it out”, nip and all, in public. I have no beef with women feeding their babies in public. I do have a beef with them sitting at a table with their tits hanging out. Not that it happens often; in fact I’ve seen that few enough times to count them on only one hand, but still. Wasn’t fun. But I didn’t kick up a fuss either, I just tossed my money on the table and left.

            • BarbiCat says:

              Well I guess you’ll have to console yourself over the fact that the world doesn’t revolve around what YOU would prefer other people to do with their bodies.

      • staralfur says:

        I regret to inform you that “I’m in a public place, but don’t look at me” makes as little sense as “breastfeeding is indecent.”

    • Mighty914 says:

      I agree with you.

      Unfortunately, a law is a law, and if that’s what it says, then I guess there isn’t much that can be done about it.

    • hosehead says:

      Yeah, and they shouldn’t allow brown people or cripples, either. Why should I have to look at brown people or cripples while I eat my burger.

      Get a clue.

      • El_Fez says:

        Fantastic. You wont mind if I take a huge shit on my table, then will you? I mean it’s just poo after all.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          Will you be eating that poop? If so, then fine.

          If you are unable to tell the difference between feeding a baby and taking a shit, I fear for your future offspring.

          • Limewater says:

            You would eat lunch and feed your baby in a restaurant while watching a reenactment of “2 girls 1 cup” at the next table? That’s pretty awesome.

          • El_Fez says:

            There’s zero difference between the two acts. Both are natural functions, both are required for the survival of the biological form in question. What’s the big deal?

            • runswithscissors says:

              “There’s zero difference between the two acts”

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

              I’m a guy. I don’t breastfeed, so I’m not some angry mom here.

              I can’t tell whether you’re just flame-baiting the angry moms or if you are really that… I don’t even know what word to use.

              Taking a shit on the table is no different from breastfeeding because both belong to a class of “bodily fuictions”?

              Breathing is also a natural bodily function. So restaurants should be able to ban that. Or if they allow breathing, then logically they should also allow shits on the table!

            • NumberSix says:

              Clearly not a parent.

              You know, I know it’s cliche to say it, but I’ve been the guy who hated on parents and am now a parent. I get it. All of it. A pet does not train you for parenthood and the issues that go along with it. No I can’t just “control my kid”.

              If you don’t have a kid, you just need to shut pie hole.

              • pantheonoutcast says:

                And if you have a kid, you need to keep him out of the restaurants until he is old enough to function on his own.

                The door swings both ways…

                • NumberSix says:

                  Sorry. It’s not that simple. Come back when you ‘ve procreated.

                  • thisistobehelpful says:

                    Most of the people I know with kids remove them when they start acting up a lot in public. The same way you shouldn’t have a loud cell phone conversation in the middle of a church sermon or something. Or maybe not having a conversation in a movie theater. I’ve had to remove my goddaughter when she started throwing a tantrum in the middle of a store. You don’t need kids to know that they are small and removable from any situation and that it is polite to do so and probably better for the child that discipline isn’t doled out in public as well.

                • lukesdad says:

                  The door truly does swing both ways. Meaning you need to buck up and deal with the fact that there is all sorts of shit out there that is going to annoy you, get in your way, offend your sense of smell/sight/touch, etc. It’s part of being out in public. No one has to stay home because their kid might scream or shit his/her diaper just to make your life easier. If you can’t deal with that, maybe YOU need to stay home.

              • El_Fez says:

                Fine then – you wont mind if I take my shirt off and let my nasty, hairy, flabby, Jabba-like man-boobs flop all over the place while you are trying to eat, will you? Fantastic!

          • Fidget says:

            That was beautiful.
            Seriously, I don’t get the “I’m entitled to only see boobs when they’re being sexy. Therefore I see nothing wrong with comparing them to your ass, which I also only want to see when it’s being sexy. So just shut up and be sexy. Ditch the kid, it lowers your future mating-value.”
            But you put it much better.

      • DEVO says:

        Why do you find brown people and crippled people gross

    • trey says:

      whats the matter little boy? are you scared of breasts? i am so sorry that your innocent virgin eyes had to see something NATURAL! you stupid P.O.S., dont you belong in England… that is where they coined the term “Nanny State”.

      • Mighty914 says:

        Overreact much? Someone is stupid just because he has different opinion from you?

      • donkeydonkeypublicbathroom says:

        I just love your mature reply to a well written comment. This just in – other people will disagree with you opinion. Calling the poster a P.O.S. and other names just makes you looks ignorant and immature.

        • apd09 says:

          thanks. I am always amazed at the way people react to opinions other than theirs. I am married, and my wife and I are trying to have kids and we both would not feed the baby in public like that. Yes it is legal, but it also a personal decision.

          I thought the comment was written to express an opinion without being over sensitive but apparently people just could not look beyond their own thoughts and see that there are always 2 sides to a discussion. And yes, I meant discussion because there is no point in arguing with people who refuse to listen, instead try to have a discussion and show them your point without being confrontational.

      • Big Ant says:

        “i am so sorry that your innocent virgin eyes had to see something NATURAL!”

        Sex is natural, so lets have sex at the restaurants and we shouldn’t protect people from seeing it.

        The laws have nothing to do with being natural, they are just there because it is a legitimate way to feed a child.

        Though if it was a private establishment he should have just ask them to leave, not giving the reason why. If they refuse they are trespassing on private property and should be dealt with as such.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      It is no way indecent to feed a child in public. It is very perverted to even insinuate that a BF mom is in someway being indecent by feeding her kid. It’s men and society who have sexualized women’s breasts. Their primary purpose is actually for feeding, not for pleasuring me.

      Any woman I have known or seen BF inn public has been very modest about it. Unless you are staring and being a purv, you usually have to look twice to even tell what they are doing. Just have some freaking self control and avert your eyes so the damned kid can eat..

      Oh yeah, and if you are offended, why don’t YOU go eat your food in the bathroom.

    • katsuyakaiba says:

      Dude…point blank..it’s just a boob, it’s nothing to be grossed out over. I’ve seen bigger boobs on some of the men out there who just ‘whips them out’ by taking off their shirt on a hot summer day.

    • Christine says:

      Ok… you are obviously a man…..

      Jerk.

    • Christine says:

      Wow…. I have been sitting here for the past five minutes trying to respond to your post without getting myself kicked off the forum….

      I cannot believe you would put a woman through that… you have obviously never fed a baby before to banish her to the small quarters of a public (no doubt dirty) washroom…

    • Redred says:

      Except if you followed the link in the post to the page that summarizes state laws on breastfeeding, Kentucky is one of 44 states that allows women to breastfeed in any public OR PRIVATE location. Including businesses. So no, eating establishments in those states cannot ask women to breastfeed elsewhere.

      Women with babies should not have to be banished from the public sphere just because you think breastfeeding is gross.

      • Southern says:

        Amen. I think homeless people that haven’t had a shower or a shave in 2 years are gross, but that doesn’t mean I want them all rounded up and shipped to Alaska or something.

      • Gstump says:

        But they weren’t banished from the ‘public sphere’ they were banished from a private dining establishment. Had a police officer done something similar if she was in a public park that would be breaking the law. But if the manager of Johnny Rockets has a policy that says no breast feeding then he or she is well within his or her rights to ask the individual to stop or provide an alternative.

        • Southern says:

          Incorrect.

          They are more than welcome to put up a “No shirt, no shoes, no service” sign, as there are no specific laws regarding these items, but breastfeeding IS covered by a specific law, just as the restaurant HAS to allow seeing eye dogs (and/or other service animals) as protected by the Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA), EVEN if the owner of the restaurant puts up a “No Pets Allowed” sign.

          What if someone in the restaurant is allergic to dogs (and believe me, there’s plenty of them!)? Too bad. The law says the animal can be there, so if you don’t like it, you’re free to leave, and feel free to petition the government to change the law.

          But until the law is changed, breastfeeding in public (at least in 44 states) is completely legal, in any Public OR Private place that “services” the public (like restaurant, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, etc).

    • NumberSix says:

      Consider yourself flamed, douche.

      Maybe you’d like to eat in the Johnny Rockets bathroom. No? Didn’t think so.

    • You Can Call Me Al(isa) says:

      I understand breast is best and breast feeding is also promoting the bond between mother and child… but…. what about using a breast pump and taking a bottle along for those times when you’re going to be out in public for a few hours?
      You know your baby will need to eat while you’re out and you don’t know when its mood will strike. A bottle could solve that problem. When I worked at Subway there were many times that women would ask for a glass of hot water or for a bottle to be heated up in the microwave, and we would oblige.
      What do you do when you can’t be with your baby when it’s hungry? Like when you’re at work or at a movie? You pump the milk from your breast and the person watching your child feeds it with breast milk from a bottle.

      Also, breasts are sexual or they aren’t. You can’t have it both ways; that’s hypocritical. I, as a woman, cannot walk around without a top on (I would if I could, especially as hot as it is outside). So, are they non-sexual only when a woman is nursing?
      There was a big uproar when Janet Jackson’s nipple popped out during the Super Bowl half-time show. Was that sexual or not? I think not, but that’s not really what the law says, does it?

      I know the article is hours old and not many will read this reply, but I wanted to throw out my 2 cents like everybody else.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        Because we all know that extra breast milk just flows like a river out of a woman’s boobs and we can summon it any time we please.

        There is a reason women call it liquid gold. Most women pump when they finish feeding their child. Most of the time getting an extra ounce is considered a big deal. When we are at work and not with our children, those bottles go to replace the bottles they are getting when we are at work and not with them.

        I wouldn’t take anything from my precious supply of extra breast milk every single time I had to go somewhere with my baby for more than a couple of hours just because so misogynistic purv can’t deal with women using their breasts for their primary purpose.

        • You Can Call Me Al(isa) says:

          I realize my statements may be a bit contradictory (I am slightly buzzed on my glass of wine after a long day at work). I guess I mostly meant the breast milk in a bottle as a suggestion. These breast-feeding arguments get very heated either one way or the other. I meant it as a compromise. My only experience with breast feeding comes from my sisters and women I’ve worked with that never had a problem producing enough breast milk to keep as a back-up.
          I, personally, am okay with breast-feeding. It irritates me that the laws on breasts are very contradictory, though. Since I never plan on having children, my breasts will always be considered “sexual” even though a majority of people agree that a breast’s main function is to feed children. I would love to be able to walk around topless when it’s extremely hot outside!

          • Viciouspixie says:

            You might consider another point (you will understand once you experience it) if you are a nursing mother not feeding your child for a few hours becomes extremely uncomfortable. Simplest solution is to nurse.

      • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

        You could walk around topless in Ontario if you wanted to – a precedent setting case made it legal in 1996. Of course, unfortunately, the vast majority of women decide to keep their…assets…concealed in public %[.

      • crackblind says:

        Except by law in a number of states, you can go around in topless. In NY it is totally legal to do so, and there are several other states that allow it as well. The issue is social convention, not law. It doesn’t mean you won’t get hassled, even by the police, but the law is ultimately on the side of toplessness.

        The Janet Jackson flap had nothing to do with the law, it was about broadcast standards. The TV stations are licensed by the FCC and as part of their license, they have to uphold certain standards which this incident violated. Jackson was not charged, the network & the stations were fined by the FCC (which if I recall was later rescinded). Again, not a legal issue but a licensing one.

        So yes, you can in many states of the USA, walk around without a top on.

        However, this has little or nothing to do with breastfeeding. As the article states, it is legal thus the manager was violating the law.

      • Steamboat says:

        Al, you’ve obviously never breast fed a child. Pumping is uncomfortable, takes a lot of time, and needs to be done frequently, including while the baby is bottle-feeding expressed milk. Unfortunately, the pump doesn’t empty a woman out as well as the baby does, which can lead to plugged milk ducts, pain and infections.
        Do you really mean a woman should put up with lugging a breast pump, bottles and a bottle warmer (incidentally it is NOT safe to warm bottles up in the microwave) in addition to the diaper bag plus suffer pain and infections just because you have issues?
        Strictly speaking, breasts are not sex organs, they’re for feeding babies. Any other connotations are purely cultural.

        • thisistobehelpful says:

          Strictly speaking they’re both in humans. We’re the only primates that have them. We’re the only mammals that have breasts present period outside of pregnancy and lactation. Other apes have mammary tissue that only expands when lactating and then flatten out again to match the males when that’s done, minus sagging skin and nipples. There is no breast present before that. It could really be argued that human breasts primary function is actually sexual since they are present before child bearing and despite a lack of it. The use of them for feeding is actually a result of them being a sexual display. We’re a bit backwards.

        • macruadhi says:

          I’m sorry, I have to take issue with both your idea that microwaving bottles is unsafe and that you even NEED to warm a babies bottle. The reason we are told no to nuke bottles is the danger of the microwave creating hot spots and your little one getting burnt when they suck their way down to it. So a long as you agitate your nuked formula thoroughly, they is no problem. AND, There is no need to bring formula, milk, whatever, up to body temp. Well, as long as your child is not special in some way, well, all of our children are special in some way, but I digress. I mean, cool or cold liquids usually won’t upset a babies tummy, it didn’t my little one’s, but YMMV.

        • Javin says:

          Well, I have two sisters that have breast pumped, (one of them currently pumping) and they both read your response and said, “She’s lying.” So I’ll take their word for it.

          Sounds like you just pulled up a list of “possible side effects” and decided to say they all happen all the time. Way to go for making your case.

    • runswithscissors says:

      The moment I saw this article I knew the comments would be full of childless men proclaiming breastfeeding to be disgusting and comparing it to pooping in public.

      Sigh.

      • AgamemnonV1 says:

        There is always two camps in a situation like this. Both people are out in full force without doing the obvious: reading the article and then understanding that this website is called the Consumerist.

        The manager only asked the woman to go into the bathroom to breastfeed her child once a table of customers complained about it. At this point, as a manager, as a duty to uphold customer satisfaction, guess what he’s going to do? And, of course, like anyone who likes to wave their “I know my rights” flag, instead of calmly realizing the fact that some people do not want to see a child being breastfed while they eat their food is not a matter of it being disgusting, it is simply a matter of personal etiquette.

        The world will never agree on one issue, even on this one, so what did the woman do? She made a gigantic scene about it and came back in full force to try to ruin someone’s business. Service wasn’t refused to her, she was simply asked to breastfeed in a bathroom–asked being the key word here. Her life wasn’t threatened under penalty of death. She was not refused the right to breastfeed. She was ASKED politely. For every single person who defends this woman, they are not defending women’s rights or the law of Kentucky, they are defending a woman who blew something so little out to huge proportions.

        And for the record, I have pretty much lived and breathed with my niece from the time she was born and went to plenty of restaurants when my sister-in-law brought her along when she was still young enough to be breastfed. It happened a few times–mostly without incident, but, as I said, there is always someone who may have a complaint, and instead of exploding on the manager’s suggestion, she politely inclined and went outside instead to breastfeed the child. And why? Because she understands everyone has their irks, and on a sensitive issue, she was more than willing to walk ten feet out of the restaurant for a couple of minutes. BFD it ain’t.

        • atheos says:

          ok, I’ll bite. So, can I politely ask Black persons not to eat in my restaurant? I mean, I’m not refusing them service, I’m politely asking because of complaints from other patrons. Seriously, what’s the uproar all about, I don’t get it? //sarcasm off

          • Javin says:

            Y’r syng wmn wth thr tts t r nw thr wn rc? Rll? Shld w llw dgs t t n rstrnts? r ppl t fck shp n pblc t? Y’r typcl gnrnt hpp.

          • AgamemnonV1 says:

            Yes, because an unappetizing act like breastfeeding is certainly comparable to racism. Don’t give up your day job, Glen Beck.

        • Bob says:

          Didn’t anyone point out that the woman was right that the manager can request she do breastfeeding elsewhere but she doesn’t have to? What was done by this manager to force her to leave the restaurant, was against this specific law about breastfeeding. Again, what the manager did is AGAINST THE LAW. Doing things in businesses that are against the law is ALWAYS an ill-advised move.

          • AgamemnonV1 says:

            Like I said, no one reads the article. The manager didn’t force her to leave the restaurant one bit–this lady stormed out there once she was REQUESTED (context, man, context) to feed her child elsewhere. It is not against the law to request to breast feed your child elsewhere. The woman left the restaurant of her own accord after that. Which brings me back to my original point: NO. LAW. WAS. BROKEN. Unless the manager twisted her arm and shoved her to the bathroom screaming, “Go breastfeed in there!” then we can talk about breaking the law.

        • Oface says:

          In the article it states she WAS outside.

          • AgamemnonV1 says:

            You ever been on the patio of a Johnny Rockets? People eat out there as well. She traded one seating area of customers for another.

    • LostTurntable says:

      dn’t cr f ths cmmnt gts m bnnd: Y’r fckng sxst dt. G fck yrslf.

      • Javin says:

        nd y’r wht trsh slt. W’r vn. Srsl, wh r wmn nsstng tht th shld b llwd t whp t thr prvts n pblc? Hw fckng HRD s t t cvr yrslf nd fd dscrtl? RLL ppl? M mthr dd t wth kds, n sstr dd t wth kds, nd nthr sstr dd t wth . Nt sngl n f thm hd SNGL prblm. Th ddn’t tr t flp thr tts t n frnt f ppl tryng t t (nrsng tts, b th w, r FLL f bctr, nd r strd n lk-ctchng br tht flls p wth bctrl brth. D yr rsrch y stpd bnts). Ths whl, “t’s m RGHT” sht s ld. t’s M rght t g t rstrnt nd hv nc ml wtht smn flppng t thr drt tts t th tbl rght n m ln f sght. D t n yr cr (ssmng y’r nt typcl wht trsh tht’s gt n ld trck wtht C), d t t hm, s pmp, s bttl, f n thr ptn, s blnkt. Bt KP YR SHT T F M SGHT. Gd, t’s mzng hw fr w’v bgn t rvrt t pr-cvlztn. dcrc, hr w cm.

    • Skankingmike says:

      Wow you got lots of people talking.

      Most people here are just chest bumping that they’re not prude like other Americans and there’s nothing wrong with Breast feeding in public. (which I personally could care less about) There are so many more important things politicians should be concerning themselves with that the fact that they even took time out to write these stupid worthless laws just irritates the piss out of me.

      First, if you’re so loving to your child and if bathrooms have so many GERMS!. Why go to a public place with a small child who still requires breast feeding?

      Second, Where do you change your child if they soil themselves? I hope it’s in the bath room because I know that its probably not allowed on the table in the dining area.

      Third, Why would you subject the small child to a loud, scratch that extremely loud restaurant where the wait staff sing with tips?

      Fourth, If you’re so worried about germs and dirt from the bathroom, what about the germs and dirt in and around the table. Not to mention waitstaff do no have sick time they are paid under 3 dollars an hour and rely solely on tips. Thus they handle dirty money all day and often times work with colds, and can contaminate your food. Yet you bring a tiny child into that environment.

      Seriously if you’re so into this, new age of breast feeding is the right thing to do movement (while there is still huge scientific debate on it), then why subject your child to all this in the environment.

      This isn’t a park or a place you HAD to go to. This is a theme restaurant not really catering to the under 1 crowd.

      BTW Explain why you can’t store breast milk in a bottle?

      • thisistobehelpful says:

        How can there be a scientific debate on breastfeeding? It’s technically the first thing that keeps humanity going after the actual procreation. Like really? What debate is there? It’s good for the kid and the mom as proven by our survival.

        • Skankingmike says:

          http://stats.org/stories/breast_feed_nyt_jun_20_06.htm

          We used to eat raw meat too should we continue? Just because something is doesn’t mean we haven’t developed ways of making it better.

          Animals we feed on formula end up being just as healthy and strong as animals who feed off their mothers.

          Listen breast feed don’t breast feed.

          But you didn’t answer any of my questions.

          If you are so concerned about germs why take a small child to a dirty restaurant where if they soil themselves you have to take them into the “scary” bathroom.

          • vaguely says:

            You breastfeed up to a year after birth. What I am getting from you arguments is that for the entire first year of life, the mother and the child should sit in a bubble at home, not even consider going out and making people uncomfortable with something entirely natural.

            Breastfeeding is important not just for the milk, but for the bonding between mother and child. I’m sorry the idea of something that happens all the time all over the world upsets you, but get over yourself, please. Your patriarchal arrogance is showing.

            • thisistobehelpful says:

              Glad someone answered it for me. There are certain hormones that are released while breastfeeding that lead to a calmer child. If you want to look up the studies done on stress levels in critters bottle fed vs critters who had been breast fed there’s a couple on monkeys. I’m not worried about germs, kids are grimy little things that eat dirt. However, telling someone to feed there kid where actual human feces is also present in a greater amount than anywhere else is pretty ridiculous.

              Look up oxytocin, bonding and breastfeeding.

          • trey says:

            ever heard of steak tar tar? try some raw meat once in a while… it tastes great.

      • mocena says:

        Seems silly to have to explain this when you could easily look it up, but storing breast milk in a bottle and then feeding the baby with the bottle can cause the baby to start to refuse the breast. Breast milk is important, yes, but it’s also an important bonding time for mom and baby, if the baby starts refusing the breast, that time is lost.

        • Javin says:

          Y’r bsltl rght. Hvng yr bb t frm bttl th nc r twc d tht y’r fdng n pblc wll mk th bb rfs th brst. (B th w, ths s clld srcsm, bcs y’r n dt.) N stds nywhr shw tht. n fct, n stds fnd n ggl s jst hw gd bttl fdng cn b. t cn hlp th mthr’s brsts rcvr, llw thm t s xctl hw mch th bb s tng, tc. Tr gn, mrn.

    • Bob says:

      Actually the law does not state that the “public places” is only common ground owned by the state for general public use. Essentially a public place is usually defined as, well, a place that the general public is welcome to enter.

      Essentially because that Johnny Rockets let her in with the baby then public breastfeeding becomes her legal right and what Johnny Rockets did to stop her from doing it there was AGAINST THE LAW. No one gives a rat’s behind what you or I or others think about how ill advised that breastfeeding in public restaurant can be, it is AGAINST THE LAW to deny her right to do so if you allow babies into the restaurant! I repeat, what that Johnny Rockets did is AGAINST THE LAW as written. It may not be a strong law and no one will ever go to jail for breaking this law, but the law is the law is the law. The law stated concerns breastfeeding and only breastfeeding in public places (as the Commonwealth defines it, not as you or I define it), not for changing diapers or other unsanitary duties with babies.

      Will someone contact the manager or area manager or district manager of that Johnny Rockets and get someone to write an apology letter to her and a $20 coupon already! Or did some manager decide that sacrificing their pride was a too extreme a price to make the bad PR go away?

    • Fidget says:

      For the 1 in a million nutters who can’t manage to be hygienic while breastfeeding (ie, don’t clean up after themselves), you have a point. But really, there are people like that with or without breastfeeding; regardless of whether someone’s rudeness is protected by breastfeeding laws or not, there will likely be someone else doing something much more offensive (spit on the floor, blowing their nose in the tablecloth, another 1 in a million nutter) whom you also can’t really kick out–but no one’s taking that last example as representative of x group of people.
      You’re being flamed because…well, take a look at the people agreeing with you. For most of us, it’s (mercifully) easy to forget that there are people out there willing to bludgeon a woman to death with their members because, well, that’s just their right. And this sure drew those people out. Taking one woman’s rude behavior as evidence that all women should lose a basic right…well, this is the kind of company you keep with that sentiment. Guys like Javin who talk about sexually and physically assaulting strangers just for being women. Who are so overcome with rage at the thought of a woman having rights to her body that they let that level of violence spill over into individual threats on a public forum. It’s worth considering that those are the people agreeing with you here.
      Yes, there should be clarification that allows a business owner to remove that rare, rare, rare woman who can’t be courteous and clean about breastfeeding to an acceptable social standard. No, they should not be allowed to do so by taking away rights from all breastfeeding women.

  3. parliboy says:

    Look, angry moms: This isn’t some cop ticketing you for breastfeeding on the street. This is a private establishment. And while Kentucky law says that you can’t be arrested for this, Johnny Rocket’s is not required to let you do it. You’re not a protected class.

    I can do a handstand and sing the Star Spangled Banner through my nose at Johnny Rockets — after all, it’s not illegal. But they’d be perfectly within their rights to kick me out.

    If you don’t like their policy, then don’t eat there.

    • Hoss says:

      Go to the link. The law says no person shall interfere with breastfeeding

      • parliboy says:

        I read it already, thank you:

        “Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, a mother may breast-feed her baby
        or express breast milk in any location, public or private, where the mother is
        otherwise authorized to be.” …. “No person shall interfere with a mother breast-feeding her child in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be.”

        That aside, Johnny Rocket’s can define anyone they wish as being a trespasser. So can any owner. Otherwise, what’s to stop someone from walking onto your front porch uninvited, whipping it out, and they saying, “you can’t make me leave”. In that regard, you’re no different than the restaurant.

        • AI says:

          First thing I thought of. It would be the ultimate trespass-negating tool.

        • Hoss says:

          You’re not understanding the word interfere.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          Clearly, you received your legal degree from a fine, fine law school.

        • HunterJoules says:

          You know what, you may have a point. I can’t watch the video from the computer I am, but from the post it says, “According to the mom, she went out onto the Johny Rockets patio to feed her 6-month-old daughter.”

          If she just decided to use the patio to feed her baby, she probably had no business being there, and could perhaps be thought of as not being “authorized” to be there.

          On the other hand, had she ordered lunch, then fed her baby as she consumed her food, I’d think it would be nearly impossible for the restaurant to kick her out.

        • seanjustinpenn says:

          I think you’re not reading it correctly.
          It says “where the mother is otherwise authorized to be”.
          So if the owner of the property (Johnny Rockets) allows her to be there when she’s not breastfeeding, then legally she’s also allowed there while she is breastfeeding.

          • Beeker26 says:

            Not true. The second you are asked to leave you are no longer authorized to be there, and are now trespassing. If you’re at a bar and start getting rowdy after a few drinks they have every right to kick you out based on your behavior. And while it’s not illegal to be loud in a bar, the owner doesn’t have to allow it *because you are disturbing the other patrons*.

            The law prohibits municipalities from making it illegal. But just because it’s not illegal doesn’t mean a restaurant owner can’t ask you to leave because of it. These are two completely different things.

            Think of it this way. If I invite you into my private home, and while I’m getting coffee for us you decide it’s a good time to breast feed, and come back and find it a tad bit distasteful and ask you to leave, would you really tell me to go to hell cause the law says you can breastfeed anywhere you want? And if you think if you said this to me, and I call the police, they won’t drag you out of my house and charge you with trespassing or disorderly conduct? Is that really what you think?

            • Kryndar says:

              The difference being that you are not protected in terms of being roudy. What people are basically arguing with this logic is that since brestfeeding women are not allowed to be removed for brestfeeding that instead the owners should, and are allowed to, remove them for absolutly no reason at all because they are breastfeeding. I don’t know about others but there seems to be a little misstep in the thought process there.

              • Beeker26 says:

                No, the fallacy is that people believe that because it’s legal that business owners are forbidden from asking you to stop or leave because of it. This, of course, is false. Business owners have every right to deny service to anyone at anytime. This law doesn’t make breast feeding women a “protected” class. Protected classes are dictated by anti-discrimination laws and are based upon immutable traits such as race, color, creed, gender, age, religion, and sexual-orientation. “Breast-feeder” is not on that list, nor does this law place it there.

                The law also specifically states in each subsection that it applies wherever a woman is authorized to be. But once you asked to leave you are no longer authorized to be there. There is a reason this passage is there. The right to breast feed in public does NOT supersede the rights of a business owner to dictate exactly what does and does not occur in their establishment.

                And you didn’t answer my question. If I was breast feeding at your dining room table while your kids, your grandmother, and your husband were trying to eat, and you kindly asked me to stop, do you think you have the right to ignore me and do it anyway? Your home is after all a private location, right, so you have no say at all what goes on there, right?

                • MamaBug says:

                  being asked to leave because of breastfeeding is illegal in KY (as well as some other states). She was AUTHORIZED to be there before she breastfed.
                  She started to feed.
                  Then she was NOT AUTHORIZED to be there – because of the breastfeeding.
                  This is illegal. The establishment’s rules cannot override the state’s law.

                • Kryndar says:

                  I would say that there is a VAST difference between someone’s private residence and a place of business. I think, that although it would be terrible, someone should be within their right to deny entry to their house to anyone who was not white, or whatever descrimination of your choosing for the point of argument, that is unless they were a govenment worker or something along those lines who for whatever reason has to enter the property. I would not want to associate with that person but I think they should be allowed to. On the other hand if the same person opens a business I don’t think they should be allowed to do that or in anyway allow their prejudice to affect how they run their business. Guh, I don’t think this comment is going to make me any friends.

                  Anyway back to the point. If you are arguing that the Kentucky law allows someone to be kicked out for breastfeeding that is one thing, which I still disagree with, but if you are saying that it simply does not supersede the owners right to deny service then that is where I am saying the misstep in logic is. It is impossible to remove someone for no reason for a reason. If you choose to arbitrarially deny service to a women because she is breastfeeding it is not arbitrary, it is because she is breastfeeding and therefor come directly back to if one is allowed to kick out a women because she is breastfeeding.

            • SunnyLea says:

              No, I’d tell you to go to hell for entirely different reasons. And find better friends to have coffee with.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      Ky. Rev. Stat. § 211-755 (2006) permits a mother to breastfeed her baby or express breast milk in any public or private location. Requires that breastfeeding may not be considered an act of public indecency, indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching or obscenity. Prohibits a municipality from enacting an ordinance that prohibits or restricts breastfeeding in a public or private place. (SB 106)

      http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14389

    • HunterJoules says:

      Absolutely incorrect. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 211-755 clearly states that “a mother may breast-feed her baby or express breast milk in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be.”

      http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/211-00/755.PDF

      • Putts says:

        That “where the mother is otherwise authorized to be” clause is the kicker.

        A private business is free to ask anybody to leave, for any reason. While the law prohibits someone from demanding that they stop, it does not remove their rights to ask someone to leave the premises if their actions are offensive to another patron.

        • sonneillon says:

          Also in addition to that there is no penalty for asking a lady to stop breastfeeding. If there isn’t a penalty to enforce it. It is merely a guideline.

          • mindshadow says:

            I’m curious about this too. Maybe someone here can explain the penalty for not allowing someone to breastfeed in a state that has specific guidelines about this type of thing.

          • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

            In some states there is a fine paid to the state that can be levied against companies that fail to comply with the law (often issued by the Department of Health). In other states there is a statutory penalty that the company must pay to the “victim,” generally upon complaint to that state’s Human Rights Commission (or whatever they happen to call it). In other states, you bring a civil lawsuit to enforce your rights and receive whatever penalties go along with that class of lawsuit, generally compensatory and punitive damages and often attorneys fees as well. In my state (Illinois), the statute only allows for an injunction against the business and for the business to pay all attorneys fees and court costs of the plaintiff. So it varies a lot.

            • sonneillon says:

              It’s Kentucky and nothing is listed under the statute. Usually they list penalties, now she could probably sue but she suffered no “damages.” And in most lawsuits attorneys fees are not awarded. There is the very real chance that she spends 80,000 dollars to get a 500 dollar judgment. Name and shame (the current tactic) costs her an hour. And costs the company thousands of dollars, maybe even tens of thousands of dollars if it is a busy place.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          Um, that’s EXACTLY what the “where they are otherwise authorized to be” phrase means. WHY DO PEOPLE MAKE UP EXACTLY BACKWARDS LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS PHRASE?

          If she is otherwise authorized to be in the building — because she is a person eating a burger, let us say — she specifically CANNOT be removed from the building for breastfeeding. She CANNOT be considered trespassing, or her business suddenly unwelcome, because she is breastfeeding. Or for an invented reason that covers the fact that it is her breastfeeding that is bothering the business.

          The phrase has a long history of interpretation in Civil Rights litigation. It is the SAME wording that prevents you from throwing someone out of your establishment because he is black — if he is OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO BE THERE and have a burger, you ARE NOT allowed to refuse to serve him because of his race or for whatever reason you choose to invent to cover the fact that it’s actually because of his race. You are literally exactly backwards on this.

          • Beeker26 says:

            Why do you feel your right to breast feed supersedes others’ rights to not have to watch while eating a meal?

            Just because you are a nursing mother doesn’t give you Mary Mother of God rights above everyone else. Maybe it’s the most natural thing in the world to you, but y’think, for just one second, that not everyone else thinks this way and huzzah THEIR OPINIONS AND FEELINGS ARE JUST AS VALID AS YOURS. There are lots of “natural” things we do all the time that I’m sure you wouldn’t want to watch someone do while you’re trying to eat dinner.

            Just because YOU CAN doesn’t mean YOU SHOULD. The world doesn’t revolve around you and your child.

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              So … interpreting legal statutes properly means the world revolves around me and my child? I’m confused by your argument.

              • Beeker26 says:

                Yes, you are confused, because you are NOT properly interpreting the law. The law states that MUNICIPALITIES cannot pass laws that make breast feeding in public or private places illegal. The law doesn’t say a business must provide you service while you do so. Or asked to leave because of it. Here in NY it’s perfectly legal for a woman to be topless in public. The law is very similar to this one; it expressly states it’s not illegal and no law can be enacted saying otherwise. But guess what — any establishment that requires shirts has every right to refuse service to a topless woman. Even though it’s completely legal for that woman to be topless. And if she is asked to leave and refuses she can’t be arrested for being topless but she CAN be arrested for trespassing. It’s really that simple.

                Just because an activity is not illegal (either by no law outlawing it OR a law protecting it) doesn’t mean you have the right to do it anywhere you damned well please, ESPECIALLY if that place is a business with other patrons who may be offended by it.

                • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                  You’re reading the law incorrectly; that clause prevents municipalities from overriding the state law that allows breastfeeding in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be. To wit:

                  211.755 Breast-feeding permitted — Municipal ordinances not to prohibit or restrict — Interference prohibited.
                  (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, a mother may breast-feed her baby or express breast milk in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be. Breast-feeding a child or expressing breast milk as part of breast-feeding shall not be considered an act of public indecency and shall not be considered indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching, or obscenity.
                  (2) A municipality may not enact an ordinance that prohibits or restricts a mother breast-feeding a child or expressing breast milk in a public or private location where the mother and child are otherwise authorized to be. In a municipal ordinance, indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching, obscenity, and similar terms do not include the act of a mother breast-feeding a child in a public or private location where the mother and child are otherwise authorized to be.
                  (3) No person shall interfere with a mother breast-feeding her child in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be.

                  • Beeker26 says:

                    I read it in its entirety. And you are not interpreting it correctly. Once you are asked to leave an establishment you are no longer authorized to be there and you are now trespassing. The law is very clear in this regard. The law prohibits you from being arrested for breast feeding but it doesn’t protect you from being arrested for trespassing or disorderly conduct. You’re really having a hard time wrapping your brain around this, aren’t ya?

                    Just because an activity is legal doesn’t mean a business owner must permit you to do that activity in their establishment. That’s where the “notwithstanding any other provision of the law” part comes in, specifically the law that dictates a private business is legally allowed to refuse service to any person at any time at their sole discretion. Unless you are protected by an anti-discrimination law, which protects certain people in certain situations based upon such things as race, color, creed, age, gender, religion, medical status, and sexual orientation, which you clearly are NOT.

                    Please stop pretending to be a lawyer.

                    • Redred says:

                      But they cannot ask you to leave just because you are breastfeeding. That is the purpose AND INTENT of the law, and that does indeed matter.

                    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                      Dude, I am a lawyer, AND I HAVE SEEN THIS ISSUE LITIGATED. You are incorrect and even a cursory reading of the case law will point that out to you.

                      I’m not sure why you’re taking it as such a personal affront that you’re wrong in your interpretation of the statute.

                    • Beeker26 says:

                      Actually what I’ve read is exactly the opposite. There have been cases in other states with identical laws where women who refused to leave after being asked to cover up and/or be more discrete due to customer complaints were ultimately charged with criminal trespass. Since you’re a lawyer you should have no trouble looking it up.

                    • Paladingo says:

                      You got SO OWNED.

                    • MamaBug says:

                      Um, she is a lawyer?

            • Difdi says:

              You’re right, just being a nursing mother doesn’t do that. The State of Kentucky, on the other hand, HAS enacted a law that does exactly that.

              • Beeker26 says:

                No it hasn’t. You an Eyebrows are both misinterpreting the law. Sorry, but it doesn’t give you carte blanche to breast feed anywhere you please. Just because it’s not illegal DOES NOT mean you can’t be asked to stop and/or forced to leave.

            • Difdi says:

              Oh, and “all opinions are equally valid” is semantically identical to saying “All opinions are invalid”. How invalid is yours?

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              Why do you feel your right to eat your meal supersedes the right of an infant to eat his or her meal in peace?

              It’s funny how it’s not okay for other to people to violate your supposed rights, but it’s okay for you to violate someone else’s legal right. Funny how that works.

              • Beeker26 says:

                So it’s ok for the child to “eat in peace” but to hell with anyone there that might possibly be offended? Tell me, is that the way you’re raising your kids?

              • El_Fez says:

                Fantastic – you’ll be picking up my tab then? Until you do, you don’t get to dictate how I enjoy my meals.

                *THAT* is my right – the almighty dollar.

            • StaudtCJ says:

              I just don’t understand. People will be perfectly content to watch a mother feed a baby a substance made from another animal’s milk that has been dried, de-fatted, refatted, devitamined, revitamined, demineraled, remineraled, chemically altered, and reconstituted; that has been linked to severe nutritional deficiencies in a minority of cases; that has multiple safety recalls every year; served in a chemical-leeching plastic container; decanted through an artificial feeding spout prone to breakage, choking, flow issues, and promoting air swallowing; rather than permit a mother to feed her child the food the child is supposed to receive from nature/g-d/chaos/flying spaghetti monster’s plan without stares, harassment, and claiming she’s “spoiling the view”. I mean, wtf?

              Even some of the “generous” commenters here are suggesting she at least pump at home and feed the baby a bottle with breastmilk. So take the correct food, in the correct ergonomic container, remove it from the container, put it in a chemical-leeching artificial container, add a feeding spout prone to breakage, choking, and air swallowing, and then feed the baby?

              It sounds silly. Just let the parents feed the child when the child is hungry however the parents choose to feed the child, even in a *gasp* restaurant, and mind your own business.

            • SunnyLea says:

              “…others’ rights to not have to watch while eating a meal…”

              Where exactly is this so-called right enumerated? Yesterday, while I was having breakfast at this really cool place that has griddles in the table so you can pour your own pancakes and eat ‘em fresh, some lady at the next table was discussing her friend’s prolapsed uterus in great detail. This, I think, we can all agree (unlike breastfeeding) is gross and definitely off-putting when one is trying to eat.

              Yet I didn’t at any point decide I had some sort of made-up “right” not to hear it.

          • Southern says:

            Another comparision would be a blind person with a seeing eye dog, Eyebrows.

            A privately owned business cannot refuse entry or service to someone with a service animal.

          • Justintime233 says:

            Calm down honey you are gonna start spewing milk all over the place. Oh btw I hope someone gets sick and vomits on you and your baby. Vomiting in public is ok right?

    • Paladingo says:

      Actually they are required to let you do it, but good try on the indignant rage bit.

    • sonneillon says:

      And people mad about it equally have a right to protest and perhaps wreck your business. And we have a legal right to comment about what we think.

      Yay everybody is following the law.
      The question isn’t whether the business owner broke the law. The question is. “Is the lost business worth having her leave the store?”

    • Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg says:

      And while Kentucky law says that you can’t be arrested for this, Johnny Rocket’s is not required to let you do it. You’re not a protected class.

      She is, in fact, specifically protected, though not by virtue of being a member of a protected class. Instead, the protection comes from the provision of the law that states “No person shall interfere with a mother breast-feeding her child in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be.”

    • Southern says:

      You’re not a protected class

      Actually, since there’s a specific law about it, they ARE a protected class.

      This is no different than had Johnny Rockets asked any group of (insert racially protected class here) persons to leave the establishment.

      • Tim says:

        When we passed civil rights legislation saying you could not bar people from entry based purely on race, it was because it’s an acceptable compromise to limit the rights of private ownership in order to prevent the subjugation of entire group of people.

        Now the question being asked is whether it’s okay to further limit the rights of private ownership so that women don’t have to breastfeed in the bathroom. Personally, I think it’s a ridiculous to even compare the two: subjugation of an entire group or people on one hand, women having to breast feed on the other.

        Personally, I would let women breastfeed in my restaurant if I owned a Johnny Rockets, and although I think they’re overreacting, these women have a right to let people know about the breastfeeding policy at Johnny Rockets. But to go so far as to suggest that we need a law saying women should have an undeniable right to breastfeed wherever the want? That’s just dumb.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          Why is that dumb? Do you have much experience with breastfeeding? How long did you do it? How much did it impact your earning capacity? Did being barred from establishments where you were not allowed to breastfeed impact the ability to keep local dollars in your community? Did it reduce your spending and therefore the economic productivity of your state? When you breastfed, did you find you were able to fully participate in the civic life you are guaranteed as a citizen, or were you barred from public meetings because of your breasts?

          Do you find the state does not have a compelling interest in properly-nourished and healthy babies, fed by breast or formula? If there is no such compelling interest, have you taken steps to have WIC repealed and to shut down food banks? Do you have a great deal of experience in infant care? Do you think infants should be kept at home until they’re old enough to eat solids? How do you propose to pay for this? Or do you think hungry infants should be left to scream? Did you keep your infant at home when your were breastfeeding, or did you opt to let your little one scream from hunger? Of course on a standard breastfeeding schedule you would be feeding your infant every two hours, as I’m sure you’re aware.

          Since you have clearly thought this through, how do you propose that breastfeeding women like you and me avoid plugged ducts, mastitis, leakage, pain, and supply problems that may come from delaying breastfeeding? (I assume you also oppose pumping in public.) Should all mothers simply be kept at home and prevented from participating in public life to avoid accidental public lactation? Or is only deliberate public lactation the problem? Did you stay at home 24/7 during the twelve months you lactated with each child to avoid lactating in public? Or did you convince your elected officials that all public business should take less than two hours and should be scheduled to accommodate your breastfeeding? Would you suggest I resign my elected office and cease participation in civic affairs because breastfeeding women should not be protected by laws that allow me to attend meetings and feed my child? How do you suggest I notify my constituents about this decision, that motherhood makes me unfit to be a citizen and participate in civic affairs? Public meetings in which I participate typically last between six and eight hours.

          Given your apparently vast experience of breastfeeding that allows you to declare protection of it in public as “dumb,” would you say you oppose it because you think a significant portion of adult US citizens should be barred from participating in public and civic life until such time as they stop reproducing, or that you oppose it because you feel the state has no compelling interest in healthy children?

          • AI says:

            Quick! We’re being overrun! Someone build a wall of text to stop the invaders!

          • Kryndar says:

            Grrrr Internet ate my first attempt at a response so let’s try this again. I find it amusing how most people seem to just being ignoring your explenation as to why this interpretation is incorrect. Personally although what Johnny Rockets did was, as far as I can tell, against the law I don’t think it should have been. Rather I would prefer it if public breastfeeding was legal but that owners of private establishments were allowed to disallow breatfeeding in the main storefront, that is I do not think it should be allowed to be banned in the restroom. I also don’t think it should be a considered public indecency for a women to be topless in a situation where it is not considered to be so for a man, which is actually the case where I live. All this being said however, I think that stores that disallow it would be making a stupid decision and that a boycott would not necessarily be unwarrented.

            • Kryndar says:

              Oh damn this was intended to be a response to your response to Putts.

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              “Rather I would prefer it if public breastfeeding was legal but that owners of private establishments were allowed to disallow breatfeeding in the main storefront, that is I do not think it should be allowed to be banned in the restroom.”

              Honestly, and I don’t mean this disrespectfully or flippantly, have you ever tried to breastfeed in public bathroom, especially an infant with no head control whose neck needs support? Leaving entirely aside the issue of whether you would eat your lunch next to someone who was pooping, which is the favorite response here of breastfeeding activists — there just isn’t ROOM in your standard public bathroom stall to breastfeed a baby, especially if (like me) you needed to sit down to do it. (Some women can stand up and do it, and even walk around, but I wasn’t coordinated enough for that.)

              Are you aware that breastfeeding an infant takes typically 20-40 minutes? Would it make sense to tie up a bathroom stall that long? (Would YOU willingly sit in a public bathroom that long if you weren’t using it?) The handicapped stall? Especially since many women would need the larger space of the handicapped stall to breastfeed. Who has precedence if a woman is breastfeeding in the handicapped stall and someone requires that stall to use the bathroom? What if there are multiple women who need to breastfeed? What if the restaurant only has one stall? Should all places of public accommodation be required to provide breastfeeding lounges?

              Or maybe we could all just relax about it, understand that most women are discreet (I was; I had no desire to flash my boobs around), and cope with the fact that sometimes boobs get exposed, sometimes people tuck their shirts into their underwear, sometimes people spontaneously barf in the middle of the supermarket, sometimes people forget to zip their pants and you *cough* see things, sometimes teenaged boys go mooning … being in public we are sometimes exposed to things we might rather not see, but most of it is unlikely to be permanently scarring.

              • Kryndar says:

                Well perhaps not the restroom my point was more that I think their should ALWAYS be an allowed area but that I think that owners should be allowed to disallow it in the main store area even though I would consider it a stupid idea to do so. That being said I think it is such a non issue, that is store owners not having that right, that I don’t care much, if at all that they don’t. I was simply saying how I think it should be. But ya restroom point I’ll admit was stupid on my part I just meant that there should be *some* area designated as always being allowed. I will also admit to not being too knowledgeable in terms of the specifics, that is length of time it takes and how one must hold the baby as I am a twenty two year old guy.

              • Kryndar says:

                Okay I am using someone elses computer for these posts and it officially hates me. My response did get posted somewhere but not here so… time to hate myself for double posting.

                Well perhaps not the restroom my point was more that I think their should ALWAYS be an allowed area but that I think that owners should be allowed to disallow it in the main store area even though I would consider it a stupid idea to do so. That being said I think it is such a non issue, that is store owners not having that right, that I don’t care much, if at all, that they don’t. I was simply saying how I think it should be. But ya restroom point I’ll admit was stupid on my part I just meant that there should be *some* area designated as always being allowed, I think my mind just quickly defaulted to restroom since that is the one that always comes up. I will also admit to not being too knowledgeable in terms of the specifics, that is length of time it takes and how one must hold the baby et cetera as I am a twenty two year old guy.

                • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                  At least you’re willing to think about it and consider the issues!

                  (My husband was totally weirded out by public breastfeeding until we had a baby — though of course he never said anything to women who were feeding. After we had a baby, he’s totally, “whatever,” about it and doesn’t even notice it. Once you’ve been around it day in and day out by actually BEING a parent or being around a lot of parents, it stops being a big deal all on its own.)

                  • Kryndar says:

                    Errr I may be misreading you here, sorry if I am, but if I am not that I did not communicate myself very well. I personally have absolutly no issue with breastfeeding anywhere, or rather I don’t make an issue of it. I will fully admit it makes me a bit uncomfortable but that is my issue, and has nothing to do with the breastfeeding but rather it was engrained in me to be respectful as a kid and as a byproduct of that it feels impolite to see bare breast, even implied bare breast. I also realize that it is my issue to deal with so I still support public breastfeeding. I was simply saying that I would rather have it where owners could decide to either be fully friendly or somewhat friendly, where only part of the store would be open to breastfeeding, but that as it stands I don’t care enough to support the law getting changed in that direction. I think it is fine as it is, the Kentucky law that is.

            • Redred says:

              Oh, how generous of you to not ban me from breastfeeding in the restroom.

              Do you eat in the restroom? No. Guess what — neither does my son.

              • Kryndar says:

                For the record I for allowing breastfeeding in a restraunt and, as I stated below in response to eyebrows, my restroom comment was stupid on my part and not quite what I actually meant. I am simply saying, that although I think breastfeeding should be allowed in the entire restraunt I don’t think that owners should be forced too allow it, in the entire restraunt that is. However, out of all the ways the laws could be contructed the way it is currently, that is the Kentucky one, would be my second choice of out the possibilities I can think of.

          • donkeydonkeypublicbathroom says:

            If TIM was breasfed as a child, would that qualify? While your agrument is well writen, by saying that unless someone “walks in those shoes” per se, they can’t form an opinion or desire to change policy. Do I have to be a female to consider sexism in the workplace is wrong?

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              Indeed no. But when someone sums up the entirety of a complex public issue affecting a large portion of the populace as “dumb,” I feel at least a little free to be snippy about it.

              And in fact I DO think men should think about these issues, beyond “urk — I am uncomfortable looking at boobs that do not belong to my significant other in public,” and that’s a large part of the reason I wrote my response. Tim can dismiss public breastfeeding rights as “dumb”; JohnQPublic can dismissively write them off as the concern of “mommybloggers.” But the fact is that breastfeeding rights have a significant impact on my ability to participate in civic life in the United States, including my right to serve in an elected office for which I was duly elected. If I were not allowed to breastfeed in public, I would be denied that basic right of citizenship. Breastfeeding rights have significant impact on women’s ability to earn during their childbearing years (and keep themselves off welfare, if you want to get a little extreme about it). They have significant impact on local commerce, particularly since women do the majority of family shopping.

              I truly think (or at least hope) that most people who oppose breastfeeding do so out of ignorance, and I hope that if they consider these issues, they may come to see why it’s important. (And you know, before I breastfed, I was not super-comfortable with women breastfeeding in public, but I understood the policy and health reasons why it’s important, so I kept my discomfort to my damn self. Discomfort with it is understandable. A desire to ban it is problematic.)

          • Anonymously says:

            Uh oh, prepare for the onslaught of mommy bloggers.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              Yes, because mommy bloggers could never hope to be half as intelligent as men who are talking about pissing on floors and shiting on tables (in a dive bar in a west end town, call the police there’s a mad man around…)

          • Tim says:

            I stand by my point that the subjugation of an entire group of people justifies limiting the rights of private owners but breastfeeding does not. Why? You’re not being shot up by police or being hung from trees. We don’t need to pass a law so that you can live.

            I bet it does suck to go through all that stuff, but just because something sucks doesn’t mean we need a law to fix it. The reality is, you can still function in this society. Women have done it for thousands of years without laws explicitly saying they can breastfeed in public.

            Most of your arguments seem to focus on things that are public in nature. Unless you have your “public meetings” are Johnny Rockets, I’m not sure how these points are applicable. We’re talking about a *private* place. If you want to go and breastfeed at a state park or city hall and someone tells you no, I’ll protest right next to you.

            Johnny Rockets isn’t something you *need.* If you have to breastfeed your child every 2 hours, then you might not be able to go to a fast food joint, we don’t need laws to fix that. In addition, I’m not sure how not letting you breastfeed at Johnny Rockets has public health implications, and any argument involving “local dollars” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics that would take more than a blog comment to respond to.

            You have made a conscious and admiral choice to have a child. There are a lot of good and bad things that come with that. You can’t take all the good stuff and expect the government to fix the bad stuff.

            I’m sorry your breasts lactate unexpectedly.

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              You are aware that Johnny Rocket’s is a “place of public accommodation”?

              Also: “I stand by my point that the subjugation of an entire group of people justifies limiting the rights of private owners but breastfeeding does not. Why? You’re not being shot up by police or being hung from trees. We don’t need to pass a law so that you can live. … The reality is, you can still function in this society.”

              But we didn’t need a law passed to keep Johnny Rockets from shooting people or hanging them from trees. The argument of the Jim Crow era was exactly what you’ve stated here: You can still function in society, you don’t NEED to eat at the Woolworth’s lunch counter. I’m not sure how your point follows, honestly.

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              So what you are saying is that government intervention that would allow businesses to discriminate is okay, but government intervention that protects citizen’s rights is not okay? I get it. Government intervention is bad when you don’t like it and is “socialism”, but when it’s something you want it’s perfectly fine– democracy and freedom at work!

          • Redred says:

            This is so well said — thank you for spelling it out for the benefit of those who have less experience with breastfeeding! It can be so frustrating to try to explain to some people why the ability to nurse in public is a huge deal.

          • DorsalRootGanglion says:

            You know what? I’ll respond. First, I am going to start with a premise: there is no good reason for anyone to breed anymore. The human population is growing too fast and really isn’t doing much for the world, one way or another. Breeding is a choice.
            “Why is that dumb? Do you have much experience with breastfeeding? How long did you do it? How much did it impact your earning capacity? “
            No children here. That’s a choice. So is having a baby. It’s known that having a child decreases a woman’s earning potential, as does extended breast feeding. This is not our problem.
            “Did being barred from establishments where you were not allowed to breastfeed impact the ability to keep local dollars in your community? Did it reduce your spending and therefore the economic productivity of your state? When you breastfed, did you find you were able to fully participate in the civic life you are guaranteed as a citizen, or were you barred from public meetings because of your breasts?”
            I would argue that choosing to perform an action (breeding) that sucks money from the community in the form of services for children, spending for public schooling, health and welfare for children, etc. ends up being more detrimental to the local economy than a woman being forced to breast-feed at home. Imagine what our budgets would look like without needing to spend anything on schools. (Disclaimer: I teach high school, as does much of my family).
            “Do you find the state does not have a compelling interest in properly-nourished and healthy babies, fed by breast or formula? If there is no such compelling interest, have you taken steps to have WIC repealed and to shut down food banks?”
            The state has a compelling interest to save itself money. The best way to save money is to prevent and/or discourage people from having children and to encourage people to kill themselves off before they need long-term care. It’s also somewhat telling that the people who get most up-in-arms about breast-feeding end up being the ones who can afford to feed their babies regardless, i.e., middle-class white mothers.
            “Do you have a great deal of experience in infant care? Do you think infants should be kept at home until they’re old enough to eat solids?”
            Sure, why not? The average baby can start eating solids at about 4-5 months. Yes, that early. The baloney about 6 months and up is just fear left over from times where the food and water source was more often contaminated. Start feeding the baby solids, slowly at first, when the baby is utterly fascinated by eating. That’s how we’ve done it, and by we, I mean my two friends with 9 month olds.
            ” How do you propose to pay for this?”
            Not our problem! You were the one who chose to remove yourself from the workforce and create a child when, among other things, there are plenty of children already in the world. You were the one who deliberately destroyed your earning potential.
            “Or do you think hungry infants should be left to scream? Did you keep your infant at home when your were breastfeeding, or did you opt to let your little one scream from hunger? Of course on a standard breastfeeding schedule you would be feeding your infant every two hours, as I’m sure you’re aware.”
            Or whenever she’s hungry. The trend of enforcing a feeding schedule is incredible passe. However, if you’re so attuned to your child’s feeding schedule, why not go outside when you know she will not be hungry? You can’t have it both ways and say that there’s a schedule…but you can’t predict when she’s hungry.
            “Since you have clearly thought this through, how do you propose that breastfeeding women like you and me avoid plugged ducts, mastitis, leakage, pain, and supply problems that may come from delaying breastfeeding? (I assume you also oppose pumping in public.)”
            Don’t breastfeed. It’s that simple. You’re making a choice that, among other things, is based on incredibly dubious science. All the “facts” about intelligence and health are done with research that’s remarkably biased and, if nothing else, is based largely on correlation without causation. The only thing breast-feeding is proven to do, and I say that loosely, is reduce gastrointestinal problems in the first 6 months.
            “Should all mothers simply be kept at home and prevented from participating in public life to avoid accidental public lactation? Or is only deliberate public lactation the problem? Did you stay at home 24/7 during the twelve months you lactated with each child to avoid lactating in public?”
            12 months? Really? That’s a choice, not a requirement, except in the case of children with profound allergies for whom most food is fatal. Again, though, you’re arguing against yourself. You can’t claim that the baby has a two hour schedule and then say that you never know when she’s going to be starving.
            “Or did you convince your elected officials that all public business should take less than two hours and should be scheduled to accommodate your breastfeeding?”
            So you’re saying that elected officials should accommodate your voluntary, financially unsound, environmentally dubious, and earth-destroying baby-making habit? And then, they should accommodate a choice made via some odd combination of convenience, useless science, and self-righteousness? I’d say that’s your problem, not theirs.
            ” Would you suggest I resign my elected office and cease participation in civic affairs because breastfeeding women should not be protected by laws that allow me to attend meetings and feed my child?”
            I was unaware that making a baby removed your ability to write letters and participate in online or video-linked conferencing.
            “How do you suggest I notify my constituents about this decision, that motherhood makes me unfit to be a citizen and participate in civic affairs? ”
            Ah ah ah….you’re conflating breastfeeding with motherhood. Are you denigrating the millions of women who cannot (due to pain, lack of flow, etc.) or choose not to breast-feed?
            “Public meetings in which I participate typically last between six and eight hours.”
            In the era of internet conferencing, this is a non-issue. Set up Skype, at the very least. Solved that problem.
            “Given your apparently vast experience of breastfeeding that allows you to declare protection of it in public as “dumb,” would you say you oppose it because you think a significant portion of adult US citizens should be barred from participating in public and civic life until such time as they stop reproducing, or that you oppose it because you feel the state has no compelling interest in healthy children?”
            The state has no interest in having children, period. The state’s involvement in parenting is a sad after-effect of the fact that you all can’t take care of your kids without the state’s involvement. You need cheap vaccines, public schooling, clean parks, tax breaks, etc. because you can’t make it with the help of your own family unit.
            Face it: parenting is a choice. Motherhood is a choice. Breast-feeding is a choice. When you who makes choices demand special concessions from the rest of the world who hasn’t made that choice, we tend to get annoyed. Don’t complain about the life you live with a child when, get this, somewhere along the way, you decided to have a baby. This option was exercised and a certain amount of inconvenience comes with it.
            The sad thing is, I don’t give a fuck about breast feeding in public. Go ahead. Do it. Doesn’t bother me. It’s the slippery slope of parental entitlement that drives me nuts. Parents getting time off for kids that childfree people don’t get for their relatives. Parents demanding language and clothing restrictions because their precious babies can’t see or hear certain things. Parents deciding that every space is a child space, even if the main focus is adult entertainment (hi there, babies in bars).

          • Javin says:

            Typcl lft wngr… “hw d y prps tht brstfdng wmn lk y nd m vd plggd dcts, mstts, lkg, pn, nd sppl prblms tht m cm frm dlyng brstfdng?” Rght. Bcs LL f ths prblms wll hppn f y dl brstfdng fr th mnts t tks t t n pblc rstrnt. h, nd y’r lyng ss btch.

            • palfas says:

              For being such a conservative prude, you certainly are one foul mouthed SOB.

              If you don’t like it, to bad.

        • mommiest says:

          Okay, let me put it another way: my kid eats this way, and has the right to eat when she is hungry.

          • mommiest says:

            And before anyone tells me to pump, my first kid refused the bottle, breast milk or formula, for the first two months of her life.

            Honestly, can we just make this about feeding kids? That’s all it really is, folks.

            • Groanan says:

              I am pro breast feeding in public, I think once we make it common place it won’t disturb us as much, and yes, it is disturbing.

              Compared to sneezing and farting I think breast feeding is A-O-K.

              That said, what do you mean your baby refused the bottle? When your kid gets thirsty/hungry enough he/she will take the bottle. If you had more of a spine than your newborn you would be able to feed them milk from a bottle (not that you should though, because of all the problems with bottle nipples and whatnot).

              • mommiest says:

                Yeah, ’cause that’s what a 6-week-old kid needs… more discipline.

                You’re right, of course. I could have forced the issue. I hope all those people around me at home, in restaurants, on the airplane, etc., wouldn’t have minded the screaming while I let my kid get hungry enough to take the bottle. I’m sure they wouldn’t have. I should have done it your way.

                Damn those maternal instincts.

            • macruadhi says:

              So your child was fed by NG tube, G-tube, etc? Just checking.

              • mommiest says:

                *refused the bottle, whether it contained pumped breast milk or formula*

                Must…type…more…slowly…

      • mvillafana says:

        I didn’t know that breastfeeding in public was a civil right.

        • Difdi says:

          Doesn’t actually matter. The law that makes violating civil rights illegal also does so for statutory rights,. like the one allowing women to breast feed their babies. It might be a stretch for a restaurant manager to be charged under the law, but he is using his position as manager to enforce what he sees as the custom of not allowing breast feeding in public, so this law looks like it would apply.

          If so, the manager is guilty of a federal crime, as defined in 18USC242, punishable by up to a year in federal prison and/or a $1000 fine.

    • MMD says:

      RTFA. Kentucky says it’s legal in any place – public OR private.

      Policy does not trump the law.

  4. SkokieGuy says:

    Yes, because a mother engaging in the same practice that has occurred since man first inhabited the earth is deeply ugly, pornographic and immoral.

    Perhaps we ought to through some of that tacky, obscene Renaissance art on the fire along with all the books ya’ don’t approve of. Mary feeding Jesus from her breast, pure porn!

    • Putts says:

      Wow, hyperbole much?

    • Economists Do It With Models says:

      Breastfeeding is not pornographic, in my view, but the fact that it’s been done forever doesn’t really make an argument for why it’s not pornographic. I mean, people have been having sex since the dawn of time too, and that’s, well, pornographic almost by definition…

    • full.tang.halo says:

      Just playing the DA here,

      You don’t see people engaging in the same practice(read sex) that created that child in public. That too has occurred since man first inhabited the earth, it’s just procreation, we were all made that why….

      On the whole it makes no mind to me, do it if you wish, it’s legal, but in return I want every person rallying behind this cause to leap to any and every persons defense no matter how hate full or bigoted of speech to have that speech, other wise you are hypocrite for coming to the defense of only the legal rights that you agree with.

      • Difdi says:

        You fail at logic. Public sex is illegal. Public breast feeding is not. Don’t like that? Go change the law. Don’t want to go to the trouble? Then perhaps you don’t feel as strongly about it as you think you do.

        • Groanan says:

          You missed the argument, which was debunking the previous argument that “because it is natural and has occurred since humanity began it should be okay to do in public.”

          There was no failure.

    • qwickone says:

      I don’t think there’s anything wrong with breastfeeding, I just dont want to see your boobs. I particularly don’t want to see your boob while I’m eating. I don’t have kids, so maybe my opinion will change over time. I’m against breastfeeding in public (where there’s no smock, cover-up, etc) because I just don’t want to see it, just like I don’t want to see people going to the bathroom. I’m not saying those things are equal or that women should breastfeed in the bathroom.

      • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

        Let’s say you chew with your mouth open and I don’t want to see it. It’s disgusting. (I mean, objectively disgusting. Nobody wants to see that.) Should you be barred from eating in public because I find your habits disgusting and I don’t want to see that?

        • Limewater says:

          Wouldn’t the better analogy be having the manager come over and ask you to stop chewing with your mouth open? I don’t think anyone has called for a ban on all nursing mothers.

          • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

            Maybe eating with a bag over his (her?) head? Since he’s okay if it’s covered up. It’s not a perfect analogy.

        • El_Fez says:

          Actually, yes – I would ask the manager to ask you to chew with your mouth closed.

        • El_Fez says:

          Actually, yes – I would ask the manager to ask you to chew with your mouth closed.

        • El_Fez says:

          Actually, yes – I would ask the manager to ask you to chew with your mouth closed.

    • AK47 - Now with longer screen name! says:

      Urination is a “practice that has occurred since man first inhabited the earth” too. Would you like me to sit next to you in a restaurant and do it?

      I think the whole breastfeeding issue comes down to a matter of discretion. I’ve seen a friend of mine use a smock in public, which is very discreet and makes it practically impossible to tell that she’s even breastfeeding. No problem there.

      But I’ve also seen a woman breastfeeding in a public park who evidently thought she was starring in her own little soft-core film. Totally not OK.

      • qualia says:

        I’m cool with cutting the baby in half– it’s nice if breastfeeding women remember it’s usually not cool to be half naked. They’re discreet 99 times out of 100, however, and I’m not for legislating etiquette. I’ll quietly think “eh, don’t need to see nipples in the park” and she’ll quietly breastfeed and it will NOT BE A BIG DEAL.

    • InsertPithyNicknameHere says:

      Here’s my problem with the “breastfeeding is a normal and natural thing” argument: there are plenty of “normal and natural” things that humans do that others may not want to see. Sex is normal and natural. As is waste elimation. To quote you, these are “practice[s] that [have] occurred since man first inhabited the earth”. And yet, I must doubt that these are things that proponents of breastfeeding in public would support being allowed in a public forum.
      I’m not saying there aren’t good arguments for allowing breast-feeding in public places, I’m just saying that this isn’t one of them.

  5. slsashrk96 says:

    That particular Johnny Rockets has a terrible customer service reputation with people that live in that area, so I’m not entirely surprised that something like this happened.

  6. aloria says:

    I know it’s just a baby eating, and I have nothing against boobs, but breastmilk is also a bodily fluid which can contain some pretty nasty diseases. Call me uptight if you want, but I sort of don’t want stranger’s bodily fluids around my food. Sorry.

    • Hoss says:

      Do you get panic attacks when someone sneezes?

      • DoubleBaconVeggieBurger says:

        How about breathing? Is breathing okay? There may be germs in people’s breath. I’ll just be in my panic room, avoiding all bodily fluids.

    • HunterJoules says:

      You’re perfectly free not to eat there if your afraid of the boobie juice.

    • wrongfrequently says:

      and if she was spraying her milk at you I’d agree.

      The other patrons noses were more “dangerous” (by your own logic) then her breasts.

      Feeding babies hurts no one, even if someone sees boobs.

    • drizzt380 says:

      You mean….like saliva? Or babies that spit up? I agree that I don’t like strangers bodily fluids around my food, but breastfeeding isn’t exactly pushing the limits of what is normally acceptable when it comes to fluids and food proximity.

      • Alvis says:

        I absolutely do NOT want vomiting infants around my food.

        • drizzt380 says:

          What I’m trying to say is, babies do spit up. It happens. You can’t exactly stop it. The mothers don’t hover over your shoulder while you eat just in case they spit up. It could happen at any moment. Therefore, babies should be banned from eating establishments right?

          Unless the mother is shooting milk across the table into the baby’s mouth, the risk of breastfeeding contaminating your food is probably lower than the risk of vomit getting in your food if you have ever eaten at a place where there is an infant.

          So, since you’re not fine with vomit, I assume you’ve never put your life into your own hands by eating at an establishment where infants were present.

          • Alvis says:

            If there’s anyone puking their guts out, I’m leaving, post haste.

            • drizzt380 says:

              I didn’t say puking guts out. I said a baby spitting up. Have you never seen a younger baby spit up? Its not like buckets of flying puke.

        • Ce J says:

          I agree. If a person, of any age, is capable of vomiting, they shouldn’t be allowed to eat in public.

          Oh, wait.

      • Fight Back Against David Horowitz! says:

        You bring up a good point. Babies are totally unsanitary, and should be banned from all contact with the public for posing a massive health risk. Spitting up uncontrollably is only the tip of the iceberg with these little fluid-expelling machines!

    • Firethorn says:

      Uh… Why would it be around your food? Presumably she’s at her own table.

      As for containing nasty diseases, I’d be willing to bet that your server’s hands are worse.

      Unless Mama is HIV positive, in which case she shouldn’t be breastfeeding in the firstplace.

    • gtrgod01 says:

      Can anyone link to a real story of a malicious breastfeeding mother going around squirting people to spread disease?

      yeah….i didn’t think so….

      • DorsalRootGanglion says:

        Having heard of a woman assaulting (sic) an officer by squirting him with breast milk…

    • MeOhMy says:

      Then you should probably stop eating at restaurants where your food is purchased, prepared and brought to your table by complete strangers who have a far larger potential for getting bodily fluids into your food, even unintentionally, than any nursing mother at the next table…

    • dg says:

      Are you whack? I’ve never heard of breastmilk carrying diseases. In fact it carries antibodies which are beneficial to the infant.

      Get over it – it’s a tit. Some infant is using it for what it was supposed to be used for. I’d have sat there and kept feeding the baby. Let the mgr go call the cops. I’d dare the asshole to arrest me if I were that mother.

  7. ColHapablap says:

    Between this and the Flying Pasties article, I’m a little curious about Chris Morran’s surfing habits today.

  8. lymer says:

    Why cant I diarrhea in public :( It’s a natural bodily function too!

    • Thyme for an edit button says:

      You’re comparing taking a runny shit to feeding a baby? Seriously?

      • AI says:

        They’re both natural and non-sexual uses for a normally-private part. I’d throw whipping my dick out and taking a piss on the floor in that category too.

        • Thyme for an edit button says:

          I think it’s hilarious that you think pissing on the floor is not the same thing as nourishing a baby.

          Saying they are both non-sexual, natural functions do not make them the same. That’s like saying apples and oranges are exactly the same because they are both fruits that grow on trees.

          • Thyme for an edit button says:

            think it *is* the same thing, I mean

          • AI says:

            You can feed a baby breast milk without whipping out the tits. Bottles and pumps have been around for years. So I am not against feeding babies breast milk in public, I am against looking at fat ugly uncovered tits while I try to eat.

            • wrongfrequently says:

              I’m going to guess that you have never breast fed a baby , or been around a group of moms talking about breastfeeding and bottle feeding. Some children won’t bottle feed, no matter what nipple you choose they reject the bottle just as some babies reject the breast.

              If you can’t stand looking at fat tits (ugly fat tits as you say) then TURN YOUR HEAD, look away. It’s never polite to stare and it’s extra creeptastic to stare at a women’s breasts when she is FEEDING her child.

              As for all of you pee/poop comparison people I will say that if it were true that jellyfish stings could be helped by being peed on I’d support your right to pee on jellyfish stings, but until that time let’s try and understand that FEEDING and defecation are different, no matter how convincingly South Park was in their episode about eating with your A**.

              • c!tizen says:

                “If you can’t stand looking at fat tits (ugly fat tits as you say) then TURN YOUR HEAD, look away. It’s never polite to stare and it’s extra creeptastic to stare at a women’s breasts when she is FEEDING her child.”

                Bah, I say stare, take a picture… strike up a conversation. If you feel that breast feeding in public is perfectly natural then I say go for it, but don’t expect any degree of privacy. You see nothing wrong with feeding your baby in public, I see nothing wrong with talking to you while your child eats. Talking is not only perfectly natural, it fosters social growth.

                For all of those amateur photographers out there… if it’s in public then it’s fair game. It’s strange how that come off as creepy (because it is creepy), but at the same time it’s perfectly understandable to whip out your boob in public and not expect a reaction.

                I say if your going to do it, cool beans, but cover up a little. If you don’t want to cover up, cool beans too, but don’t get freaked out when all the chimo’s flock to take a look.

                • wrongfrequently says:

                  I wouldn’t expect any more or any less privacy then I would with anything else I do in pubic. If people want to take pictures of me in public, fine, of course I’ll likely take pictures of them taking pictures of me with some escheresque results :)

                  I was saying “turn your head” because I was speaking as a polite person who turns her head to avoid many many things I find offensive but realize are well within the rights of my city/state/country BUT if you are speaking from a point of view that one has “no privacy” in public , and you seem to be taking it to the nth degree, I agree that it would be well within your rights to photograph me, mock me (in non-threatening ways) and the like, of course it would also be within my rights to tell your mommy. about your lack of manners.

                  • wrongfrequently says:

                    also the one coming off as “Chimo” (had to look that one up) is most likely the person photographing said boob/infant.

                    The child molester I knew took great pains to hide his delight at seeing young flesh, all the better to make moms croon that he was “the nicest man in the world” Child molesters are turned on by CHILDREN not grown up boobs, NOT mothers feeding children . Honestly if I feared that a child molester would just look at my child I’d never take her out anywhere since I know all too well that molesters are hiding in plain sight.
                    /rant

                • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

                  I wouldn’t care if someone took a photo of me nursing, and neither would plenty of women. Get on You Tube and look at the many, many videos of women breast feeding their infants (also look at the number of hits from all of the purvy men looking at the videos.) There are also plenty of pictures to be had of women nursing their child.

                  99.9% of the time, if you took a photo of a nursing woman, there would be nothing to see because the imaginary women who sit completely topless in Starbucks nursing don’t exist.

        • mszabo says:

          Personallly if you were to somehow contain the stink and the bodily fluids I’d say go ahead. If you hadn’t noticed Diarrhea smells nasty so I’d usually suggest doing that somewhere with ventilation as opposed to next to my lunch. On the other hand Breast Milk doesn’t have a smell (or unusual noises for that matter).

        • dolemite says:

          But…that’s not an empowering woman-only beautiful, natural, godly, with heaven sent angels hovering above you while mother nature ties a bow on the baby’s head miracle action. Poo is the devil’s domain.

          • Liam Kinkaid says:

            A bit off topic here…when I was a kid, my mom told me the devil lived in the toilet. I was afraid to go to the bathroom!

    • frak says:

      Your runny shit is a health hazard and has an offensive odor, ditto for the idiot who’s going to piss everywhere.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      breastfeeding = good for overall public health
      diarrhea on the floor = bad for overall public health

      that’s the gist of it.

    • Difdi says:

      Because that is an active biohazard. Last time I checked, breastfeeding didn’t include any kind of projectile being launched.

    • runswithscissors says:

      This is an asinine comparison and a textbook fallacy of accident.

      “Breastfeeding is a bodily function. You say breastfeeding in public is ok. Pooping is also a bodily function, therefore you are saying pooping in public is ok”.

      Breathing is a bodily function. It is obviously ok and necessary in public, you would agree? And yet your agreement that breathing is ok in public does not mean you are advocating pooping in public is ok. You see?

      There are bodily functions that are ok in public and there are bodily functions that are not ok in public. The proper debate is into which category breastfeeding falls.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Really, if you want to crap, have the runs, piss, or vomit on the floor in public and feel you can do so without embarrassment and humiliation, please feel free to do so. While you are at it, go ahead take a video and post it on the web for all of the world to see. I am guessing that none of you actually has the guts to do so. If so, more power to you. If you don’t, then shut your traps and stop being ridiculous infantile douche bags.

  9. Thyme for an edit button says:

    I don’t understand why people feel upset by seeing a woman breastfeed.

    • drizzt380 says:

      Unfortunately, humans aren’t rational beings. If something bothers them, they can’t always say to themselves “this shouldn’t bother me, so it doesn’t anymore” and be done with it.

      • SunnyLea says:

        Yes, but that doesn’t naturally translate into, “and therefore no one should be allowed to do it.”

    • Liam Kinkaid says:

      Did she bring enough for the rest of the class?

    • MuffinSangria says:

      Agree. But, I do love how breastfeeding is just about the only time a women can whip out her breast and men don’t like it.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      Some people are just easily offended.

    • jurisenpai says:

      Seriously! I’m just happy that a baby (possibly fussy and crying) is happily suckling away and quiet! You shouldn’t see more than a glimpse of areola anyway – and that’s if you are looking intently!

    • lemortede says:

      Ill be honest.
      It seems that the women that are so gung-ho about whipping out their breast and indiscreetly breast feeding in public (read: dont try to cover them selfs) have breasts that I really have no desire to see…

      I dont mind a women breast feeding in public, but they should show some modesty when doing it.

    • Hoss says:

      It’s the bible belt — little jimmy might see nips

    • qwickone says:

      There’s an “ick” factor. I don’t know why, but I have it too. I completely agree it’s natural, women should do it if they can and all that. I just dont want to see it because it icks me out. Lots of things I see ick me out and I’m still forced to look at them (I’m looking at you, fat people with tank tops that are too small for you), so take that for what it is. Maybe it’s because breast milk and baby vomit are largely comprised of the same thing so I automatically associate them? I honestly have no idea, it’s just kind of ick.

    • AI says:

      Because I don’t want to see the woman on the right taking her top off, that’s why http://media.nowpublic.net/images//7c/e/7ce86f6ed78fc1bfe1f065cf974af19d.jpg

    • El_Fez says:

      Because I don’t want to see some nasty ass tits flopping all over the place while I eat. The same way you don’t want to see me and my nasty ass man-boobs quivering like jello while you eat. My shirt stays on out of respect for your space. Please do the same for me.

      • Redred says:

        You would rather my son wail with hunger than see me nursing him in public? I’m sure most of the people around us would disagree.

        (And, uh, have you ever seen anyone breastfeed? There is very little flopping going on, and very little to see — it’s all either covered by clothing or THE BABY.)

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      For the exact same reason women are upset that no one wants them to breastfeed in public:

      The world is filled with selfish motherfuckers who think their rights trump everyone else’s.

      • Difdi says:

        Last I checked, there is no right to not see a woman breast feed. On the other hand, there is a right (in 44 states anyway) for a woman to feed her baby.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          I wonder – do you so vociferously protect the rights of people to carry their firearms into those very same businesses?

          • MamaBug says:

            I do!! I’d rather get a .3 second nip shot than hear a hungry baby – one that decided s/he was hungry RIGHT THEN.
            And I have two kids, and a .38 S&W Airweight. Mmmmm…boobie juice and handguns. I’m the perfect mother :D

          • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

            I would completely defend the right of people to carry a firearm. I think it should be legal to open carry. As a matter of fact, I’ve been considering getting one myself. I saw this cute little pink pistol the other day at Academy and have been dreaming about it since. Oh, and did I mention that I think breastfeeding in public is okay?

  10. Skeptic says:

    “Public breastfeeding is completely legal in Kentucky, but don’t try telling that to the manager of the Johnny Rockets in Newport, where a nursing mother was given the boot for refusing to stop feeding her child when directed to do so by the manager.”

    Well, duh. Didn’t she read the “No Outside Food Allowed” sign?

    :-)

  11. TheMonkeyKing says:

    Kentuckians love their boobs.

  12. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    I was gonna tip off a bit about how we not only need to stop trying to pretend that breastfeeding is somehow offensive, or even that a pair of boobs out in the open (or anything else, really) is definitively offensive. But I was going to point out that a business can make whatever rules they want…

    …but it seems the state law already guarantees the right for women to breastfeed wherever they need to, so it seems to me that this store manager needs to get slapped around a little.

    Which tangentially makes me wonder…what do Muslims (or other sensitive groups) do when they see a topless woman legally in public? Like in NYC?

    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

      Having breastfed just about every place there is to breastfeed in public (while sitting still … I’m not multitalented enough to walk the aisles of Target while breastfeeding), including in public meetings, at restaurants, at parks, etc., in my smallish, conservative-ish city, 99.9% of people minded their own business. The other .1% of people were 6-year-old boys shouting, “MOMMY! THAT BABY IS EATING HER BOOB!” (And then mom replies, “Just like the cow we saw at the petting zoo, dear.”)

      And sometimes waitresses would offer me a glass of water.

      I really got zero hassling about it from ANYBODY, even some individuals whom I knew to be pretty conservative Muslims. My experience was that breastfeeding is actually somewhat more normative in the non-First-World parts of the world, and that if you live in a country where hooker clothes are marketed to pre-teens, breastfeeding is pretty wholesome by comparison. The people who felt uncomfortable were usually boys and men in their teens and 20s; men who were a little older (especially if they had kids of their own) were unbothered by it.

      The trolls who all come out to complain about OMG TEH BOOBIES on these stories always disappointment me, but I remind myself that in actual fact, most people in the world — or at least in my part of the world — mind their own business and accept breastfeeding as part of life and aren’t that worried about it.

      • ScarletsWalk says:

        The trolls have actually pushed me further into anywhere, any time, than i used to be. If I wasn’t subjected to bad logic and sexism and ignorance, but instead with valid, lucid arguments, I would be more conservative. But keeping on hearing how I shouldn’t feed my kid because it makes someone else uncomfortable, no matter the circumstances, makes me angry.

        (I did not nurse my child, so it’s not really even an issue for me. But if I *did* nurse, it’s food and your boobs don’t like it having to wait 5 minutes.)

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          This particular post has been particularly rich with the misogyny, women’s body hatred, and generalized sexism. Also with people who apparently freely and frequently engage in coprophagia.

          • Dalsnsetters says:

            Agreed! Seems like we have an awful lot of folks here who wouldn’t think twice about eating their own crap.

            I think the main problem here is that these are people who never ever thought about the fact that the breasts’ primary job is to feed, not to provide these guys with something to drool over and play with when they want.

            Got that? Breasts were not created to provide y’all with something to leer at. Once y’all get past that, you’ll understand the whole thing a little bit better.

            P.S. Love your login….

            • AI says:

              The primary job of a penis is to pee. It is used for reproduction much less often. I’m sick of all this misandry and sexism towards men. I’m proud to have to pee, and I will do it wherever I like! Men for peeing unite!

    • Difdi says:

      As to the Muslims…it really depends on how acclimatized they are to the USA.

      If fully acclimatized, they probably just shrug and go about their business.

      If fresh off the boat, there may be trouble. Assault & battery, rape, etc, kinds of trouble. But none of that makes the mother wrong to do it, it just means people from other countries need to stop enforcing their homeland’s culture on people in their new country.

    • Alecto says:

      The Duggars say “Nike” and force their kids to look at their shoes.

    • Groanan says:

      They grin and bear it?

  13. shepd says:

    No problems with it if she was wearing a cover. Huge problems with it otherwise. I’m betting it was the latter and not the former, but nothing is specified.

    If a man can’t be at the establishment without a shirt, neither can a woman. That’s just being fair.

    • coconutmellie says:

      I agree with the fairness bit, but sadly what’s “fair” doesn’t work when you flip the coin: A woman can’t be shirtless wherever a man can be. That’s definitely not fair.

      • YouDidWhatNow? says:

        Is there anyplace other than NYC that makes it legal for a woman to be shirtless in public? Just curious.

        Anyway, the very thought that someone would be offended by a mother breastfeeding is offensive to me. Get a grip.

        • wrongfrequently says:

          Eugene Oregon and a host of others worldwide:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom (NSFW b/c of the boobs natch)

        • Sanveann says:

          I believe Ontario.

          • Difdi says:

            Actually that Ontario ruling may well be Canada-wide, since I seem to recall it being a federal-level court.

            The court basically found that gender discrimination based on not wearing a shirt was illegal. Any place with such a law then had to choose to broaden it to include men as well, or get rid of the law entirely or be in violation of the ruling.

    • Astranger says:

      Have you ever seen a woman breastfed with no covering at all? I haven’t. I am sure it probably happens, but it’s the corner case, not the norm.

      Also, usually when breastfeeding the baby tends to cover the nipple.

    • Sanveann says:

      You can absolutely breastfeed modestly without a nursing cover … as I discovered when my son, at about 4 months old, started refusing to nurse under one. You pull your shirt down over your boob … no biggie!

      Honestly, WHERE are these women who sit around topless or with their bare breasts hanging out? Because I have yet to ever see one, and I go to moms’ groups and La Leche League meetings galore.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Who are all these women taking off their shirts and bras to breastfeed and why in all my years as a woman and breast feeding mom have I never seen this (my husband is demanding to know why HE hasn’t gotten to see naked women in restaurant as well)? With all these people making these comments about naked people, you would think that seeing a woman feeding her child without a shirt on at all was an everyday thing.

      I was also wondering if since men are allowed on public streets with no shirts if that meant that as a woman that I am now allowed on the streets without a shirt. Did I mention that I am slightly overweight and have a 2 inch surgical scar on my stomach? My breast ARE quite large though, and still look pretty darned good. If a man is allowed to do it, then I should be too, damn it!!! Banana hammock and no shirt on an overweight chick with a scar= total awesomeness.

      • shepd says:

        Well, I’ve never seen women in public with no top breastfeeding. I’ve also never seen a woman told to leave for breastfeeding. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but I generally think that if you’re modest with these things, you don’t end up with trouble, anywhere.

        Now, that being said, I am from Ontario, and occasionally women have chosen not to wear shirts where it’s legal to do so. Last time I heard about it, it came with footage on the news of the person mowing their lawn. Because of that, most women realize that if you’re in public, you can be filmed, and since most women don’t want to show their breasts to everyone, they wear shirts in public, and the problem is solved. :-)

  14. 14u2nv says:

    Wait a minute. On the news last night they said she was never told to leave, some other patrons complained and the manager offered for her to use his office or they could place a chair in the restroom if she wanted and she got angry and stormed out.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      They never should have asked her to go in the bathroom or into an office. Again, in Kentucky, she has the right to breastfeed wherever she damned well pleases. Good for her for storming out and then bringing her pack of mama bears (Palin’s favorite new phrase) back the next day to publically protest (which again, is within their legal rights.) Maybe the negative publicity and all of the people who now will not be eating at the restaurant will teach Johnny rockets a thing or two.

      Johnny Rockets can do whatever the hell they want as long as they are willing to deal with the backlash.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        “….some other patrons complained…”

        So which group should the restaurant defend? The woman who was admittedly within her legal rights to breastfeed, or the multiple patrons who complained? Just because one has the legal right to do something doesn’t mean that it needs to be done without discretion. I honestly don’t have a problem with a woman breastfeeding. I do have a problem with legions of them huffing and puffing about their right to do so. Ok, fine, you have the right to breastfeed – just the same as the other patrons have a right to complain.

        The thing about protesters is that they seem to be self-defeating. What are they going to do? Tell the restaurant that they, and others like them, will not be patronizing the business anymore? Seems to me that’s exactly what the restaurant wants – to not have people breastfeed in their establishment.

        • cheviot says:

          The real handy thing is, while they can’t stop her from breastfeeding, the moment she stops the store can ban her from ever entering again.

          Problem solved.

          • qualia says:

            You probably can’t ban someone from the store for this if you admit it’s because they’re doing a protected act without being slapped with a sex discrimination suit.

      • Justintime233 says:

        wld jst lk t tll y mms t gt lf. Y knw yr chld’s fdng schdl. Y knw ppl r grssd t t sng yr d t. Y r jst sm hpp chck tht thnks vgn=pwr nd wnts t mk pnt. H hw bt nxt tm s y d t nd t mks m fl sck jst wlk vr nd frkng vmt n y nd yr dmn bb? Wht y thnk bt tht sgr tts?

        • MMD says:

          Since, clearly, no one at Consumerist is moderating these comments anymore, I won’t moderate my response to you.

          Fuck you, you misogynist troll. You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

  15. jeffjohnvol says:

    1) According to KRS 211.755, it is legal for a woman to breastfeed their child.
    2) It is still legal for any business to deny service or ask someone to leave for whatever reason.

    I’m not saying that executing #2 doesn’t have moral implications, but there’s a difference between whats socially acceptable and what is legal. Burning the US flag is horrible, but its still free speech.

    Don’t ask me about race, as I have no idea what the response to #2 would be on that.

    • joetan says:

      You know what’s great about #2? The place is sending another restaurant business. That’s called supply and demand. Offer what the other doesn’t. No one says it has to be the product. The atmosphere is also a huge reason why people patronize the businesses they choose. This woman wants to force a company that’s main clientèle isn’t interested in a peep show while they eat unless it’s Hooters…hmmmm I bet no one would care if she’s doing the deed there. Maybe that place is to degrading to women for her.

      She has the option to give another restaurant her money but rather she’d like to eat there and make the restaurant drive away the people they market to. Go somewhere that will allow this and all is well.

    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

      “2) It is still legal for any business to deny service or ask someone to leave for whatever reason.”

      Consumerist really needs to post an explanation of how laws relating to public accommodation work EVERY TIME they post a story about breastfeeding. If she is OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO BE THERE if she is NOT breastfeeding, then she cannot be thrown out FOR breastfeeding. If a person is OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO BE THERE as long as they’re not black, then he or she cannot be thrown out FOR BEING BLACK.

      Businesses do NOT have the right to discriminate based on certain protected characteristics (gender, race, etc.) — this is a well-established body of law. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

      Kentucky’s law is specifically written to state that women CANNOT be removed from the premises or called trespassers or anything else for breastfeeding. They CANNOT be denied service because they are breastfeeding.

      People need to a) read a newspaper that dates from some time AFTER the Civil Rights Era and b) get a freakin’ clue. I don’t know why everybody suddenly decides they’re an expert in the law when breastfeeding comes up, and why they all pick the same stupid, clearly incorrect interpretation to espouse.

      • Hoss says:

        Actually jeffjohnvol is somewhat right. A movie theater can ask a 70 year old handicapped, black, lesbian wearing a hijad to leave — if for example the woman repeatedly used a cell phone. That is why the lawmakers here added the sentence about making interference with the act illegal

        • jeffjohnvol says:

          Also, the right to refuse service isn’t absolute. It depends on a number of factors. This article states it best:

          http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

          • Hoss says:

            FYI — somewhat right is a kind way to say mostly wrong. They are interfering with something that lawfully can’t be interfered

        • Difdi says:

          If said individual was actually talking on her cellphone in the theater, then yes, they could kick her out. Because what they’re kicking her out for is a real, valid reason to do so that is unrelated to her other features. But if they claimed she was talking on a cellphone when she wasn’t, as an excuse to ban her for one of her protected classifications, that would be a crime.

          Why are so many people unable to comprehend that there is a difference?

        • Dalsnsetters says:

          But I think, and I’ll leave it to Eyebrows to correct me if need be…..as long as she is removed for repeatedly using a cell phone, that is cool. But to remove her for being a “70 year old handicapped, black, lesbian wearing a hijad” would be wrong. I think it all depends on the reason for asking her to leave. Not to mention your comparison has *at least* three protected classes in it (elderly, handicapped, black), it’s not really a valid comparison.

      • seanjustinpenn says:

        Well said. The law is clear.

      • jeffjohnvol says:

        Then can you explain to me how a golf course can deny people of the Jewish faith or blacks?

        Perhaps because those are “organizations” and not a business.

        I know the boy scouts can deny homosexuals.

        I’m not saying any of those examples are not offiensive to me. They are. But they exist.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          Sexuality is not currently a federally protected class. The bar protecting protected class can be overcome in certain cases of compelling interest, and may not apply in other cases. (For example, if you are doing a movie about Martin Luther King, Jr., you are well within your rights to only look at black actors in casting the role; there are some interesting cases about whether a Chinese restaurant can be allowed to only hire Chinese waiters … but it’s absolutely clear that they can’t only serve Chinese patrons.) The golf courses mostly lose their lawsuits when someone bothers to bring one.

          I saw that you mentioned being libertarian above, and I really don’t understand why this myth of “businesses are completely free to ignore any law they choose” circulates so freely within the libertarian community, particularly when the law on this particular issue is so well-settled. It’s also the government protecting citizens’ individual rights (rights to have and raise a family as the parents see fit is generally considered an implied Constitutional right by the courts), which is a good and necessary function of government, even to most libertarians. I realize the government is protecting its citizens against a private corporation, not against government, but still — why would you privilege a business’s rights over an individual’s?

          • jeffjohnvol says:

            If you had a business, and the STATE said you had to allow people to blast loud rap music or bluegrass from personal boom boxes, which individual would you side with, you as a business owner or the customer?

            The best way to describe this is with the Seinfeld episode: “No soup for you!”

            Starbucks got reamed for allowing handguns in their business. If they had said “no guns” other people would have been pissed.

            People in this country believe that they have a right not to be offended. Thats just not so.

            Personally, I think Johnny Rockets made a huge mistake and I hope it costs them business.

        • Hoss says:

          Yea, you’re mixing private clubs with a public restaurant. Even so, the private club can’t force anyone lawfully on their property, staff, members or the like not to breastfeed in view of others

      • jeffjohnvol says:

        It does not specifically state that. Google it and read it. It says:

        “Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, a mother may breast-feed her baby or express breast milk in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be. Breast-feeding a child or expressing breast milk as part of breast-feeding shall not be considered an act of public indecency and shall not be considered indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching, or obscenity.”

        It says nothing about trespassing. What you say is an interpretation. It may be a correct interpretation, or it may not, but to say “it specifically states that” is total balderdash.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          I did not say “it specifically states” that. I said THE LAW IS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN to disallow those interpretations. (Specifically, I said “Kentucky’s law is specifically written to state that women CANNOT be removed from the premises or called trespassers or anything else for breastfeeding.”) I see how “state” could be slightly confusing there.

          But to call me out on “balderdash” when you misquoted me is funny. :)

      • AngryK9 says:

        Consumerist needs to go to a more local news source for the story rather than some Saint Louis website. The story on KDSK is quite different from WCPO, which is a local station: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_northern_kentucky/newport/breastfeeding-mother-and-supporters-to-protest-johnny-rockets-restaurant-at-newport-on-the-levee

    • Difdi says:

      Burning a US flag isn’t horrible at all. The proper, respectful way to dispose of a flag is by fire.

      I ask you: Which shows less respect for the symbol of our country? Destroying it in the proper way (fire) as free speech, to make a statement that we are losing our way…or trampling on that free speech, in essence destroying what that symbol represents, to preserve the “sanctity” of the symbol?

  16. joetan says:

    People, this is as natural as taking a shower and until they install showers in public breast feeding needs to stay private or you are being inconsiderate. There is something wrong with women who INSIST on being watched with their boob out. You NEED to push your breastfeeding in my face? That’s an illness hiding behind “something natural” my friends and all the justification in the world won’t change this.

    The end.

    • Ce J says:

      So I am ill and despirate for attention because I might want to leave the house from time to time? Young infants need to eat every 2 to 4 hours for the first six months. You are saying that women who do not banish themselves to their own homes are “inconsiderate?” Irony, anyone?

      I have been around a lot of nursing moms. We nurse in public from time to time. I have yet to see one woman who is flaunting it or pushing it anyone (other than the baby’s) face. In fact, I would be surprised if you would have noticed me breastfeeding most of the time.

      Let the moms feed how nature intended them to, let the babies eat what nature intended them to, and mind your own stinking business. The law is on our side and for good reason.

      • Liam Kinkaid says:

        I don’t see Johnny Rockets restaurants magically appearing in nature, so “let the babies eat what nature intended them to” clearly means that they should not be eating inside a Johnny Rockets.

        • Liam Kinkaid says:

          You know, I totally read that as “eat where nature intended them to”. Realizing I’m mistaken, I’m actually in 100% agreement with what you wrote.

      • wrongfrequently says:

        I’m pretty sure some of the men on here would also like women to be banished to menses huts .

        It’s so so so so sad to me that the men (I’m assuming mostly male) commenters are completely unable to wrap their brain around the fact the breasts are for ONE specific function and that function IS NOT to be ripe , young and firm for viewer enjoyment but rather to FEED babies.

        I get that breasts can be pretty, sexy and just like other body parts they can be ugly, but are we really talking about a world where we can’t be grown-up and evolved enough to turn our heads if our eyes are “offended”?????

      • joetan says:

        If you must breastfeed in public you must flaunt it? Again, there’s a reason why the bathrooms are not at the table. Be considerate to others as you are the minority and it’s obscene if you think it should be the other way around. Sit in a corner booth not at the bar. Have a little decency and some respect for some privacy for God sakes.

        Oh yeah there’s this thing called a BOTTLE that’s been around for only 100years now. Try it and stop wasting time arguing nonsense.

        • MamaBug says:

          it’s not nonsense – some babies refuse the bottle just as others refuse the breast. I breastfed both my children for about 4 or 5 months each, and each time I did in public, it was discrete. I have yet to see a woman whip out the boobies to breastfeed – most use a cover-up of some sort. I’d bet at least fifty bucks that you have been in an establishment where a woman was breast feeding and you had no clue it was happening.

    • Difdi says:

      People like you disgust me. You’d force mothers to never leave their house, or little innocent babies to eat their meals in close proximity to a toilet, because you have a perverted sexual hangup over something that isn’t sexual? I’d say you’re the one that needs to go home, and not be out in public.

  17. RickinStHelen says:

    But we must think of the Children! (Just not hungry babies, they don’t count.)

  18. BigBoat2 says:

    I thought this issue was a no-brainer (businesses should comply with the law) but the comments here are something else.

    1) Is breast feeding obscene? It’s not, but who cares. Nursing mothers are permitted to feed their kids, teenagers can wear shirts of burning flags, people can petition for gay marriage, christians can pray in public, etc. Some things offend some people. Welcome to the human race. Tolerance will make you live longer.

    2) Private businesses are immune from the law? You’d be singing a different tune if they violated the health code, or restrained someone from leaving without a receipt check (ha). The legislature has determined this law benefits the populace; there’s a political process involved if you think it’s wrong. If you want to operate a business in a particular state, it probably behooves you to learn what laws are gonna apply before you run afoul of them.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      “The legislature has determined this law benefits the populace”

      I think that’s the key to all of it. The benefits to overall public health for encouraging women to breastfeed their children outweigh the risk of offending a certain portion of the population.

    • kouotsu says:

      If you have to generalize what everyone is saying to the point that it sounds like it makes no sense, you are not making a very good argument! It is a well known fact that any restaurant could kick you out if they want to. Usually they will wait for a fellow customer to complain so the manager can’t really be held responsible, but if they really want to give you the boot it’s their right to do so as much as it’s our right to eat there.

      • BigBoat2 says:

        Thank you for the tip. I’m glad you were able to muddle through my argument to craft a response.

        Unfortunately you’re in error. A public establishment cannot kick out someone of a protected class merely for being a member of that class. I don’t know if your tidbit is well known, but it certainly is not a fact. There are some things a restaurant can’t kick you out for. Being black is one. In Kentucky, breastfeeding is another.

      • RandomHookup says:

        I think you are missing the point. The restaurant doesn’t have that right as there are limits to their ability to refuse to serve patrons. It may be “well known”, but it’s not correct.

  19. joetan says:

    This woman is demanding attention from anyone that’ll give it to her. Same people that blame Toyota for their lack in driving skills to the tune of $100s of millions in wasted time and money.

    Jail is where she should be breast feeding that poor child. She’ll have a reality show in 2 weeks tops.

    • Liam Kinkaid says:

      So, you might say she’s…

      *takes off sunglasses*

      really milking it.

      YEAAAAAHHHHHH!

    • Difdi says:

      How exactly does she deserve jail for not breaking any laws? More to the point, what sort of sick, degenerate are you, that thinks a little baby belongs in jail?

  20. Skankingmike says:

    See there are some legalizes in this law some of you may not get.

    “where the mother is otherwise authorized to be.” where she isn’t authorized to be she’s not allowed to. So if a private business denotes no breastfeeding in the eating/waiting area but in the bathroom it’s ok. Then they have simply unauthorized certain areas but allowed the restroom to be the area for breast feeding, thus complying with the law.

    Again this is a consumerist nation in which you vote with your dollar. Don’t like it? Don’t eat there.

    Private business’s hold the right to deny you entry with a gun. Why not with breast feeding? Seem unconstitutional to allow one and not the other.

    While I don’t see why it’s a big deal for the restaurant, I do respect their rights as a private business to conduct their business as they see fit.

    • thezone says:

      Wrong. By saying where the mother is otherwise authorized to be indicates that if the mother is allowed to be there when she is not breastfeeding she is allowed to be there breastfeeding. Creating a rule that says she cannot breastfeed would not work since she would otherwise be allowed to be there.

      The law is the law. There are plenty of things people don’t want to see in their lives. But when you’re an adult you deal with it. I

      • Skankingmike says:

        Never said I didn’t want or want too.

        You cannot say that a business can outlaw Gun’s (constitutional right) but not Breast feeding.

        Businesses are private dwellings not public. But what you say when you claim this is that a person can come into your home start breast feeding and you have no say in whether or not they can or cannot go? You hold the right to remove somebody from your house, just the same way businesses reserve the right to remove somebody from their business. You cannot erect laws that claim otherwise.

        Remember corporations are individuals and hold the same constitutional rights as those you have. You can no more infringe on my own personal property as you can on a corporations.

        • thezone says:

          Wrong. An business still has to follow more laws than an individual. If an individual wants to say every minority needs to leave their home then that is fine. A business does not have that option. States have made laws to allow people with medical conditions to be able to use a bathroom at a business even when the bathroom is not open to the general public. Businesses can be regulated by law. Therefore, the state can say tell any business a woman can breastfeed in their establishment if the woman would have otherwise had access.

    • Jo says:

      The mother and child were authorized to be there when they weren’t prohibited from entering.

      Will you still “respect their rights” if they were to say, refuse service based on various other basic characteristics of potential customers, like for example, skin color or gender?

  21. 14u2nv says:

    I read she wants to file a lawsuit but no lawyer will take the case since they never asked her to leave, she just got upset and stormed out.

  22. firemunkie says:

    aslong as they dont make it illegal to stair at a mother breast feeding. not that i wouldstare… atleast not the one in the video clip, shes uggo. lol

  23. ZeshawnWhiles says:

    The easiest way to get people to stop feeding without a coverup is just to stare directly at the breast feeder in a pervy manner.

  24. Mighty914 says:

    It amazes me that people can’t seem to find a distinction between what is legal and what is tacky.

    Okay, we get it. It’s legal. That’s not really the point. If something makes enough people around you uncomfortable, why would you do it? I get that when baby is hungry, you need to feed it pretty quickly, but maybe the middle of a restaurant isn’t the best place?

    I’m not silly enough to compare breastfeeding to peeing, crapping, vomiting, etc. (those are generally illegal in public anyway), but there are still a lot of legal things that I can do that would make people uncomfortable.

    • TeraGram says:

      > I get that when baby is hungry, you need to feed it pretty quickly, but maybe
      > the middle of a restaurant isn’t the best place?

      Yeah, feeding a baby in a place where everybody else is stuffing their face? BAD IDEA!

      cripes I think I just sprained my eyeballs rolling them so hard

      • Mighty914 says:

        I didn’t think the point was that hidden, but seeing as how it went way over your head, let me rephrase.

        > I get that when baby is hungry, you need to feed it pretty quickly, but maybe
        > the middle of a PUBLIC PLACE isn’t the best place?

    • gtrgod01 says:

      Why do you care if the hillbilly 2 tables over from you at “johnny rockets” is uncomfortable? At some point you have to stop worrying about what “other people” think and just worry about yourself.

    • That Danielle says:

      Since when are there age restrictions for eating? Why are you allowed to eat your meal at a restaurant but a child who is only there because his mother is dining there is not allowed to?

      Additionally all of these points suggesting breastfeeding moms shouldn’t eat out until the child is eating solid food, would you also insist that babies shouldn’t leave the house? Because babies don’t care where they are when they’re hungry. They need to eat at least every two-three hours because their tummies are so tiny.

    • qualia says:

      I’d agree if most women were taking off their shirts entirely for the duration, but for the most part, with an experienced mom, you have maybe 5 seconds total, beginning to end, where you could see naked breast. Most people nowadays having nursing shirts or bras. You really can’t see a damn thing most of the time.

      So, you be nice and polite and don’t stare at strangers, they be polite and nurse like most women do anyway, and everyone’s happy.

    • Difdi says:

      You can’t vote people “off the island” when it comes to rights. So what if you have some unhealthy sexual hangup? That’s your problem, not everyone else’s. It doesn’t matter how many people have the opinion that something shouldn’t be done, if the law disagrees with them. There are mechanisms in place to change the law, so why not go do that? Until then, you’re just hot air.

  25. guroth says:

    If you operate a business then it is your responsibility to know your local laws. The business was legally in the wrong in this case.

    Thank god I live in a state where the law does not grant inexcusable permission to a mother to breast feed in ANY private location (If I don’t want some slag whipping her boob out in my own home, I’m glad I have the right to tell her to get outside)

    I’m on both sides of the fence here, Mothers have a right to feed their child in public locations, but I also believe that it is rude and trashy to breastfeed in public without some sort of towel or blanket to cover the exposed breast.

    I’m all for boobs, but lets face it, there are a lot of fat ugly people out there, and they are usually the ones who proudly whip their nasty boobs out without a blanket, waiving them all around for everyone to see.

    • Mauvaise says:

      QUOTE: “I’m all for boobs, but lets face it, there are a lot of fat ugly people out there, and they are usually the ones who proudly whip their nasty boobs out without a blanket, waiving them all around for everyone to see.”

      Seriously? I defy you to name (1) instance where anyone has ever “waved their breasts around for everyone to see.” That just does not happen when a woman breastfeeds. They don’t even remove their top (so the “no shirt, no service” caveat does not apply).

      Look, I don’t particularly like children, I don’t want anything to do with babies, I don’t think their cute, I don’t want to see pictures, or hold them, or hear them, etc. But even *I* don’t have an issue with breastfeeding in public. Jesus effin’ Christ, people, get a grip, I guarantee women have breastfed around you and you weren’t even aware of it.

    • BarbiCat says:

      I tried to read your comment, but all I kept seeing was “blah blah blah, I hate women, unless they conform to my magical personal standards, those sluts”.

      What was your point, again?

    • MMD says:

      Misogynist troll is misogynist.

  26. shanelee24 says:

    but, and just to be the devils advocate here, i do believe that restaurants all over the country reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, regardless of reason. certain subclasses are protected, i.e. it would be very bad indeed to kick an african american out of hooters because he was black. but i dont think that nursing moms are a protected class of people. not in that fashion, anyway.

    • Sanveann says:

      Please read the story … they ARE a protected class in Kentucky, and many other states.

      • shanelee24 says:

        I did read the story. and it said that they were protected in MOST states. maybe you should go back and take your own advice. “Kentucky is one of 44 states with laws permitting breastfeeding in any public or private location. Additionally, the Bluegrass State is also one of 28 states that has a law declaring that breastfeeding can not be considered an act of public indecency.”

        This means that, no, they arent protected in all states, or “everywhere else”, as you put it. and these are state laws, not federal. and federal statute is what protects class, not state. so, before you tell someone else to “read the story”, be sure you know your facts first. those laws could easily have been there to make sure that a women with a semi exposed breast wouldnt end up as a sex offender or charged with public indecency, and its very possible that restaurants are afforded a little more leeway to determine if they allow this sort of behavior (even though i think women should be allowed to breast feed anywhere) given the sort of business they are in. a lot of people would be offended by a brestfeeding mom in a food service establishment, yet not care if they were in walmart. (once again, for all the commenters with fire in their eyes, i think it should be allowed anywhere. i just take issue to the comment above.)

        • Sanveann says:

          What are you talking about? I didn’t say “everywhere else” … I said “many states.”

          • shanelee24 says:

            yeah, i misread that, sorry. but i still stand by my original assertation that they are not a “protected class”. that is indeed a federal issue, while this is state issue, and hasnt been adopted by all states yet.

    • RandomHookup says:

      Just because they reserve the right, doesn’t mean they actually possess that right. That reservation does not usurp the law that says they have a right to breastfeed in the establishment.

    • qualia says:

      I believe you can, in fact, sue the pants off someone if they kick you out or ban you from doing a legally protected activity.

    • Difdi says:

      They are a protected class, in the specific instance of breastfeeding, in Kentucky. And in 43 other states to varying degrees. State law says so.

  27. trey says:

    reading comments on here is like watching a monkey trying to screw a basketball… IT MAKES NO SENSE! and it hurts my eyes

  28. zeiman says:

    She should bring this to the attention of the Kentucky AG, as state law explictly prohibits women from being told they cannot breastfeed ANYWHERE. In addition to being the right of the mother, it is the right of the child not to be denied food. 44 states have enacted similar laws. Women cannot be told they cannot breastfeed in ANY public or private establishment (as long as they are not tresspassing, which in the case of being a CUSTOMER in a restaurant they are not).

    After the restaurant and manager are hit with punitive fines from the state, the mother should sue the pants off them (or negotiate for free Johnny Rockets for life).

  29. AngryK9 says:

    That is kind of funny how this story has changed from this morning. When I read the story on WCPO.com this morning, the story was that the woman was given permission by one or two non-management employees to breast feed. Then, some customers complained to the manager about the woman breast-feeding in the restaurant, and the manager spoke with her about the possibility of her going into the restroom, asked her if she’d like to go into the restroom for privacy, if she’d like to take a chair into the restroom to be more comfortable. At this point she got all “offended” and pissy and started throwing a loud hissy fit, at which point she was asked to leave.

  30. grapedog says:

    Perhaps I just don’t want to watch this ugly women feed her “contribution” to the gene pool in public. And before we decide to pick apart what I may or may not find beautiful, just looking at the photo shows the woman is grossly over-weight and probably shouldn’t be visiting Johnny Rockets anyhow.

    Per that law, the MUNICIPALITY cannot kick that lady out of Johnny Rockets, but the store manager still can. They have a right to serve, or not serve, anyone they want. Just like they can kick anyone else out that they want, because it’s private property. The manager doesn’t even need to give a reason, he can just ask you to leave, and you kind of have to leave.

    • RandomHookup says:

      I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Remember all those lunch counters in the ’60s? They were private property, too.

    • Dalsnsetters says:

      Depends on why he is asking you to leave. As has been said hundreds of time already, according to Kentucky law, he CANNOT ask her to leave simply because she is breastfeeding. In KY, she is in a protected class. And it doesn’t matter that it’s a privately-owned restaurant…they are still governed by that law. Think about it this way: there are laws about washing your hands after utilizing the restroom (for restaurant employees). Just because it is a privately-owned restaurant does not mean they can break that law. Likewise, they cannot ask her to leave just because she is breastfeeding.

      Now that I think of it, I don’t really know of any publicly/municipality owned restaurants therefore these laws can ONLY apply to privately owned restaurants.

  31. t-spoon says:

    I’m embarrassed for the people comparing breast feeding to peeing.

  32. Jonesey says:

    Man I don’t even like peeing next to people in a public bathroom…..none of these moms mind having everyone stare at them when they whip out their boobs?

  33. Hi_Hello says:

    how was the bathroom? I always figure women’s bathrooms have a nice little waiting area then a ‘bathroom bathroom’. Don’t they have couches, flowers, and perfume stuff? Men’s bathroom is a sink, toilet, and maybe urinal.

    If the bathroom is nasty, screw the breast feeding, I wouldn’t even eat there. If the bathroom is good enough that you eat at the place, it should be good enough to breast feed. You can tell know clean the staff/kitchen and food is by the look of the bathroom.

    Oh, I have no problem with public breast feeding, but at the same time, I think the manager wasn’t wrong.

    • Liam Kinkaid says:

      It is a well established fact that women’s restrooms are filthy, disgusting, disease-ridden places. Used sanitary items are frequently strewn on the floor, there is feces where no feces should ever be, and, believe it or not, toilet paper on the floor. It’s no wonder she didn’t want to feed her baby in there. I’d think she’d be more upset about the other women’s lack of restroom etiquette, though. I’m ashamed for you all, ladies. Ashamed. I’ve had to clean your restrooms before. I don’t know what kind of pagan rituals you’re performing in there, but I’ve seen the results and I weep for humanity.

    • SunnyLea says:

      “Don’t they have couches, flowers, and perfume stuff? “

      Not usually, no.

    • MMD says:

      Kentucky law is clear on this point. The manager was absolutely 100% in the wong.

  34. Amy Remax says:

    It’s not my fault you had the kid that you now have to feed…I don’t want to see it, hear it or have to deal with it. No special rights because you decided to reproduce. Take it away from my dinner!

    • Sanveann says:

      By that logic, you should be all for breastfeeding in public … because a hungry baby is going to be bothering you a hell of a lot more than one that is quietly nursing.

  35. Sparty999 says:

    I’m embarrassed that nobody has made the joke… you can’t do it unless you brought enough for all of us!!

    I can’t believe that after all the publicized issues regarding this, that any stupid restaurant manager would take a stand like this. I have no problem with it… My wife was more shy with our kids, so she covered up with a blanket. Stupid people.

  36. Big Mama Pain says:

    Hell hath no fury like a breast feeding woman scorned…

  37. Sanveann says:

    OK, as the mom of two small children, both of whom were breastfed (though one is a long, involved story), I have numerous things I’d like to point out:

    * There is no postpartum mother on earth, that I am aware of, who actually WANTS people looking at her body. So I seriously doubt this woman was doing it to get her jollies.

    * I have yet to meet a woman who whips off her shirt or nurses her baby with her entire breast hanging out. Seriously, where IS this mythical woman? Because I wear a J-cup (yes, really), and I was able to nurse my kids without a cover, without showing any breast. MAYBE if you were really staring, you’d have been able to catch a millisecond of a glimpse, but you’d have to be acting pretty pervy about it. Between the baby’s head, the baby’s body, and my shirt (which I kept on, shockingly), there really is NOT much to see.

    * It is not fun to be at home with a baby 24-7. Sometimes you want to go out and do things and see people. Sometimes your baby gets hungry when you’re doing those things. (And no, you can’t just “nurse before you leave the house,” because that does NOT guarantee your baby isn’t going to be hungry 15 minutes later. And you can’t just “pump some milk,” because that can lead to nursing issues if your baby isn’t used to a bottle, and not every woman owns a $300 pump, either.)

    * And no, it’s not like urine or crap. It’s FOOD. It may not be YOUR food, but it’s somebody’s food. Do you drink cow’s milk at a restaurant? If it came out of a cow’s udder, how is it better than the food I’m producing from MY body?

    • DorsalRootGanglion says:

      “It is not fun to be at home with a baby 24-7. Sometimes you want to go out and do things and see people.”

      Er….too bad? You chose to have a child. Deal with it.

      • Yoya says:

        Having a child doesn’t bar you from leaving your home.

      • Sanveann says:

        Really? Because a person has a baby means he/she should NEVER be able to go out to eat, to go get groceries, to go to the park or the zoo or the library or church? We should just stay at home every minute of every day, nursing, until our kids are weaned?

        Yes, I DID choose to have kids. But last I checked, I’m still allowed to leave the house with them.

      • MMD says:

        Would you say that to your mother? Do you really believe that your mother stopped being a person with rights and feelings after she had you?

        Be a fucking human being.

  38. Brian Cooks says:

    Breast feeding may be legal in the state but it’s also legal for a business to refuse service to anyone with no reason needed. As long as they don’t explicitly state they’re asking her to leave because of the breast feeding they are free to ask her to leave and they don’t need to give a reason. Also lol at the outside food statement. Bravo.

    • RandomHookup says:

      Your statement seems to conflict with the interpretation of several lawyers here on the board.

  39. JPM says:

    Just don’t get mad when I watch.

  40. JPM says:

    Just don’t get mad when I watch.

  41. kataisa says:

    So. Another self-absorbed jerk looking to deliberately cause a stink so that these breast-feeding freaks can protest in front of places of business and act like they’re oppressed or something.

    Lather, rinse, repeat. Yawn.

  42. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    So many men seem so passionate about this that it reminds me of the study I read about that said that the men who were the most homophobic were the ones who were the most physiologically stimulated by gay porn.

    I’m thinking that many of these outraged men are sexually stimulated by breast feeding and that is why it makes them feel uncomfortable. They can’t control THEIR penis, so they expect the women to do it for them. Much like the whole Muslim berka thing.

    • StaudtCJ says:

      Interestingly, muslims actively breastfeed in egypt and afghanistan. Their boobs are out, but their faces are covered, and everyone’s ok with that.

    • Liam Kinkaid says:

      I’m pretty sure I’m extremely physiologically stimulated by gay porn, but I’m not homophobic in the least. And I still don’t want to see boobs. Breastfeeding is fine, as long as it’s discreet. I’m not talking about having to go into the restroom or anything about it, but more like Sanveann was talking about. I’m sure there’s probably not a lot of nursing women that actively want to flash everyone around them, anyway.

  43. chiaspod says:

    For those arguing that Johnny Rockets is a private business and thus exempt from the law, or able to circumvent the law: please look up the definition of “public accomodation.”

    In short, any private business may make restrictions that do not run *contrary* to public law. Since there are no laws governing, say, the public right to wear sandals in high-end restaurants, a restaurant open to the public could pass a dress code.

    However, since the state in question specifically addresses the issue of breastfeeding and legalizes it – in fact, reinforces it by stating that it cannot be considered an act of public indecency, which might give some businesses ground to claim “family values” – the restaurant in question cannot act contrary to the law. Private business or not, it acts as a place of public accomodation and therefore must abide by the public laws of the state.

  44. yessongs says:

    Man! What a total bunch of BOOBS!

  45. Plasmafox says:

    A proprietor has a right to kick people out, especially if they are doing something which offends or may offend his other customers. It doesn’t matter whether that thing happens to be legal or not. If my state passed a law saying you could be nude in public, a restauranteur could still darn well kick me out if I walked in naked.

    In conclusion: they mad.

    • Dalsnsetters says:

      In this case, NO, the restaurant owner/manager canNOT ask her to leave specifically for breastfeeding. Please read the other comments, many of which have the actual law/statute/whatever in it. The wording of that law/statute/whatever makes this woman a protected class. If she can be there when she is not breastfeeding, then she can be there when she IS breastfeeding.

      Thanks for playing!

  46. blueduckconsumerist says:

    Neither the video nor the Consumerist recap suggests that the woman was a Johnny Rockets customer. Doesn’t matter who she’s feeding, that’s loitering. Give ‘er the boot, says I.

  47. JF says:

    I think I’m going to breast feed in public just to p^@% people off………

    Seriously what is the big deal? We sell magazines and clothes where women’s breasts are practically popping out and yet when a woman uses them for what they are intended…. feed a child….. everyone suddenly gets all prudish.

    BTW>> I think any guy bi*&^ing about public breastfeeding and has ever gone to a strip club is a big old fat hypocrite.

  48. jj030306 says:

    I understand that breastfeeding is one of the most natural things for a woman to do… however, it would weird me out to see a woman’s breast exposed, especially in a restaurant. In my opinion, if a mother is out and she has to feed her child, i would hope she would try to find as private a place as she could. I’m not saying the bathroom.. cause seriously, who wants to eat in a bathroom, but someplace without a lot of foot traffic. Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable exposing myself in public, even if it was to feed my child.

    • Sanveann says:

      OK, there seems to be a very common misconception here that breastfeeding = exposed breasts. And it does NOT. I nursed in public many, many times, using either a nursing cover of just a combination of shirt and baby to cover myself. You’d have to be looking REALLY hard to see any boob on your average woman nursing in public.

  49. consumer_j says:

    Hypothetical situation – mother starts breast feeding in a private establishment (say in a restaurant in KY), guy sitting in another table pulls out his cellphone camera and starts filming the general proceedings is it illegal?
    (Restaurant management doesn’t oppose either action)

    • Sanveann says:

      I’d be angry and uncomfortable, but not much more so than I would be if any random stranger started filming me without my permission while I WASN’T breastfeeding.

      As I keep saying, anyone who thinks they’re going to get a show while a mom breastfeeds a baby is going to be seriously disappointed.

  50. alienaa says:

    They say breastfeeding is natural and beautiful, right? But if I, as a guy, were to follow my instinct & gaze lovingly at said woman’s exposed breast, I’m suddenly the perv!!!

  51. kalaratri says:

    Wow, I just came from Fark and my mind was blown because they are being far more reasonable about this than many of the posters in this thread. Makes me wary the Apocalypse is coming.

  52. DorsalRootGanglion says:

    I like that many women who demand (DEMAND I TELL YOU) breast-feeding rights are probably horrified by gays holding hands. After all, it’s unnatural for those particular two people who love each other to express emotions.

    I don’t care much about breast feeding in public, though I will stare because I’m curious. It’s when the kid is older and screaming in a restaurant that I’m patronizing that I have a problem. There’s nothing like paying for a meal and a decent ambiance, only to have it ruined by a child shrieking at the top of his or her lungs. But, you know, parents > everyone else, right? Spechul Snowflake just can’t be expected to behave.

  53. Narmical says:

    For the record the existence of a law does not make something right.

    I think that an owner or manager of a private property (read jonny rockets) has the right to set there own rules of conduct on there own property. So i think they are full within there rights to say no best feeding.

    However, i do think that is a stupid rule. If i didn’t already hate the restaurant i would stop eating there over this.

    • RandomHookup says:

      So it would be okay to not service Latinos or women or people in wheelchairs, if that’s what the owner wants? When you open a business, you accept that the laws require you to serve the public and you can’t arbitrarily decide to ignore it. If you want limitations on dealing with the public, open a private club.

  54. arsenicookie says:

    I breast fed at johnny rockets in california a few months ago… just sayin’

  55. stang9946 says:

    Cvr p nd qt bng whn cnt.

    • LostTurntable says:

      Rll? Drppng th C-wrd. Kss yr mthr wth tht mth? knw y dn’t kss n wmn y pthtc bll f sht.

  56. Sparkstalker says:

    For the record, I totally support breastfeeding moms…with both hands, even,,,,

  57. LostTurntable says:

    ‘m rdng fr t mn cmmnts tkng Jhnn Rckts sd. Thnks Cnsmrst, fr sppng m fth n hmnt nc mr. Ths s fckng hrd sshls, whn th kds nds t t y lt thm t. f fr sm rsn y’r grssd t b bbs nd kds tng thn y’r fckng dt, wst f flsh, nd blght n hmnt. Fck ff.

  58. serke says:

    Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean you can’t be courteous, right?
    Sure you can tell other people to eff off, but I can totally get behind people at a restaurant wanting to eat their meal without having to look at some woman’s tit and I’m a chick.

    I don’t find it sexual, but I can also imagine there are many people who would take advantage of the situation and get an eyeful. If I had a baby, I’d rather go to the bathroom than have people stare. There’s nothing shameful about it, but I wouldn’t breast feed in public.

    I wish other women wouldn’t get so irate about this issue. She has her rights. But it seems to me the manager was trying to handle a delicate situation, and couldn’t make everyone happy.

    Maybe I’ll feel different when/if I procreate, but until then I’d rather read http://stfuparents.tumblr.com/.

    • Jo says:

      // I can totally get behind people at a restaurant wanting to eat their meal without having to look at some woman’s tit and I’m a chick.//

      I can totally get behind people at a restaurant wanting to eat their meal without having to look at some ugly individual too, and I’m a formerly breastfeeding-in-public mother. But those uglies are out there, and nobody specified my right to only see what I like the look of, no matter how much my meal cost me.

      And nobody is making anybody look. That old person whose particular method of chewing turns me off I just tend to look in another direction. If I have a problem with somebody’s “reasonable” behaviour (and yes, I’m one of those crazy folks who finds both bringing children into public AND feeding them to be “reasonable) then I deal with it without bitching to others to assert my apparently superior manners and standards.

      //I don’t find it sexual, but I can also imagine there are many people who would take advantage of the situation and get an eyeful.//

      Yeah, there are weirdos everywhere. Pervs of every predilection can be anywhere with camera phones and penises in their pants and drooling mouths. So far they’ve not stopped me running through parks, walking alone at night, sending my kids to school, taking the family to the public pool etc. OR breastfeeding the babies (in public too, no less) when they got hungry.

  59. Jo says:

    Good on her for standing up for herself and for others like her.

    I can only imagine how powerful it must feel to actually get a woman – one feeding her baby no less – to get up, leave her table with fellow diners and potentially other children, take her infant and sit in a room dedicated to the passing of human waste (and returning oneself to one’s previously hygienic state) to feed her baby as she potentially listens to tinkles, squirts etc., of other patrons.

    And if you did it because of some other “dissatisfied” customer, then by all means offer that other person (who, after all, has the problem) a different seat, a different table and/or remind them of the absolute banality that is breastfeeding.

  60. Green Mountain Boy says:

    I agree with Johnny Rockets here. I don’t want to see a woman breast feeding in front of me while I’m eating.

    What kind of a “lady” would want to do that in front of anyone is beyond me.

    • Sanveann says:

      You’re right … every nursing mother who likes to eat at a restaurant now and then AND keep her baby fed is a low-down, no-class hussy.

      You do realize that most women can (and do) nurse without their entire breast hanging out, right? Most of the moms I know nurse so discreetly that half the time, people don’t even realize they ARE nursing their babies.

  61. Link_Shinigami says:

    Fun fact, restaurants still reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Did they use this? No. They asked her to goto another area to breast feed her child. They didn’t demand it, they didn’t give her an ultimatum, they just asked her.

    I used to work at a restaurant that had a sign that said we supported woman who wanted to breast feed. Not many did, the only time I remember anyone asking about it was them asking if they had a specific place they could do it in. My manager unlocked the banquet hall room and went up with her. 10 minutes later, she came back down and my manager locked back up. Why did she do this? Because she didn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable while eating food.

    You’re experience is just as much anyone else’s. And guess what, if something is happening that makes you uncomfortable, you politely ask if there is another way it can be done and say why. I had a teacher that once asked someone that was standing outside a restaurant if he would mind not smoking while she was waiting there with her daughter because of the risks of second hand smoke. She didn’t demand it, didn’t ask him to move, just asked if he’d mind. He butted out, she thanked him, and when she walked away after waiting for her w/e, he lit up again.

    That is how this should have been handled. The woman shouldn’t of been such a womans right activist type crap and instead of throwing a fuss over the washroom, asked if she could perhaps use the managers office which would be a little cleaner or something similar to that, y’know, if she really cared. Instead, she took it personally and went out of her way to try and martyr herself.

    Oh, and no, I’m not being sexist or misunderstanding, my mother is like this in a lot of ways. I just hate when people over-react to simple situations like morons when all that is needed is a deep breath to clear the head to actually realize what is being said.

  62. macruadhi says:

    (Disclaimer: All references to the Le Leche Legion to NOT correlate to the Le Leche Legue. The Le Leche Legion is the militant, evil, parody group I made up just because I’m clever and it made me laugh.(

    And now for something (not so) completely different: I wholeheartedly think that nursing mothers ought to be allowed to feed their chittlins in public without intervention from ANYONE. That said I do have a few things to say that this story made me think about. There seems to be several militant breast feeders here, perhaps members of the Le Leche Legion? The ones who start feeding their children then stare at you, daring you to make eye contact with them or their breasts, wanting to start some commotion.

    And here comes the hate; Why should breast feeders be given ANY special treatment when their condition is (usually) both temporary and VOLUNTARY. It’s not like you were born with a lifelong debilitating illness. OK girls, your kid has to be fed at least every two hours, a little less often as the child ages, and you’re not able to time your short trips so that you will not have to nurse while you’re out? I’ve had several litters of kittens and the mother would just flop in the floor where ever she was and nurse the kittehs. Do we not, as humans, have an IQ high enough to do some planning so far as feeding our children is concerned?

    It seems there’s a ideology that allows the Le Leche Legion to both be offended by any objections to their nursing and (in their mind) to demonize any person or groups who questions their “right” to nurse where ever they happen to be, (you know when they “flop” in the floor like my Kitteh’s momma?)

    And now for a question that has bothered me for a few years. Why is it called “breastmilk”? Does not all milk come from a breast, utter, etc? Why not just call it milk? While not a complete analogue, it’s mostly the same as what you get from a cow, a yak, chimpanzee. If you must differentiate, call it human milk.

    That is all, go back to your work now.

  63. Sparkstalker says:

    Honest question here….why are so many people so nosy that they care what’s happening at another table. I mean occasionally, yeah, you can’t avoid it (e.g. a couple in the bar at O’Charley’s that did everything but jump up on the table and bone – that made for a funny evening), but otherwise, it’s usually pretty discreet. Really, do you find your companion so boring that you have to watch all the other tables in the restaurant? Honestly, folks, mind your own f’n business, eat your meal, and enjoy the company of the people at the table with you.

    • Oface says:

      Yes. I think you are one of FOUR people who have said that. When did we as a society decide its ok to tell people how WE want them to live?

  64. smo0 says:

    I don’t think this will get read, and all the better – there are so many fricken posts – I didn’t even read them all.

    The FEW times I’ve seen a woman breast feeding in public, she had herself covered with a baby blanket. I think it was mostly to keep some semblance of decency. Natural or not, some people are just not comfortable with the idea of having any part of them flopped out (even an over weight tummy which more than a breast feeding boob, I’d like to see covered….) I kinna shudder when I see public breast feeding. I don’t care if it happened when I was a baby and I don’t ever plan on having kids to do it myself… just bodily fluids.. in the mouth… freak me out (yeah exactly what you’re thinking, boys, NO.)

    I’m more annoyed by your screaming brats in the restaurant than I am with public breastfeeding.

    Either… da law is da law… and some red neck, southern, honkeys like to blow something like this out of proportion.

    STAY CLASSY SAN DIEGO!

    And lawl at the guys being grossed out… and the chicks freaking out on them.

    If they weren’t grossed out they wouldn’t be guys! They wouldn’t be the men that you love… I’m sure even the family men with children tend to “leave the room” when that crap is going on…

    hell I WOULD BE FREAKED OUT IF A DUDE STARED AT ME DOING THAT!!! Think about that, bitches.

    Peace.

  65. El_Fez says:

    Okay, the Huge Dump thing is a bad analogy, since it’s illegal. I withdraw the comment. But then I pose a hypothetical question for the breeders in the audience:

    It’s 5 years on, and Junior has stopped drinking on tap. You’re out at Dennys, sitting across from Skinhead Nazi Punk me and a couple of friends. We’re not talking any louder than the guy discussing sports on the other side of you, but we’re talking about “Those Damn Niggers” and “I hate jews” and so on. The conversation is liberally sprinkled with enough blue language to make a sailor blush. Basically we’re saying a whole bunch of stuff you wouldn’t want “My lil’ precious” exposed to.

    What do you do? We’re not being excessively loud – no more so than any other patron in the establishment. We’re not throwing stuff, we’re not getting up in your face about it. Do you make me leave?

    • wrongfrequently says:

      I would tell my daughter that our first amendment gives you and your friends the right to be racist idiots. If you were loud enough I would probably directly tell you that I think your racism is wrong and small minded.

      • Justintime233 says:

        And you would then proceed to catch the meanest beatdown of your crappy life.

        • wrongfrequently says:

          Oh my, I really don’t want to continue this little exercise in futility with you dear boy.
          I assume you are a gamer in his early 30s who may or may not live with his parents (or be supported by them) While I am a mother, wife and general nice gal. I think we shall never see head to head on most any issue.
          Let’s part ways dear Justin. I’ll go on with my lovely life and you go on with yours.

  66. Justintime233 says:

    wld jst lk t tll y y mms t gt lf. Y knw yr chld’s fdng schdl. Y knw ppl r grssd t t sng yr d t. Y r jst sm hpp chck tht thnks vgn=pwr nd wnts t mk pnt. H hw bt nxt tm s y d t nd t mks m fl sck jst wlk vr nd frkng vmt n y nd yr dmn bb? Wht y thnk bt tht sgr tts?

    • wrongfrequently says:

      children don’t actually eat on a schedule, but I think you know that already seeing as you are a tiny tiny child.

      Vomiting on people (willfully) is against the law in some places and if you did that to me I’d sue your Dad (Since , again, YOU are a tiny tiny baby)

      • Justintime233 says:

        Yea because tiny babies can access the internet and type. I award you no points and we are all dumber for having listened to it.

        • Justintime233 says:

          Oh and my father is dead thanks for asking.

          • wrongfrequently says:

            From your tone and approach to conversing with other human I’m fairly certain that though you have latent daddy issues you are as “over it” as you will ever be in regard to your father’s passing, my sympathies for your mother.

  67. Bob says:

    Why are so many people supporting the manager for breaking the law?

    Manager, write an apology and give her coupons to stop the bad PR already!

  68. Doncosmic says:

    I haven’t been to one of those in years. As a person who grew up as a Redskins fan, I can’t imagine giving my money to Daniel Snyder

  69. Justintime233 says:

    I encourage you all to stop what you are doing and stare at the mother breastfeeding with a look of excitement on your face while panting slightly. Don’t stop until they leave. Maybe even move your head around as if you are trying to get a better angle on it. Women are so self conscious they will either leave or make a hilariously enraged scene looking like a jackass.

    Either way, as George Bush would say “Mission Accomplished”.

  70. km9v says:

    Maybe if she was a little more attractive they wouldn’t have minded? Seriously, mother’s should be able to breast feed babies ANYWHERE.

  71. Big Ant says:

    I have no problem with people breastfeeding in public, just so long as they have no problem with me staring at them and watching them do it.

    They have to right to breastfeed and I have the right to stare in public places. Don’t get angry at me for staring at you breastfeeding in public then I won’t get angry at you for breastfeeding in public.

  72. Sure I could agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong. says:

    Don’t these stores have a sign that says “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?”

    Not that I advocate what they did, but I’m just saying… They can refuse service to anyone.

    • RandomHookup says:

      It’s already been covered a bunch of times in this thread, but they really can’t refuse service to “anyone”. A number of laws — including the Kentucky law on breastfeeding – override their little sign.

  73. mocena says:

    Wow, such vitriol. A quick google search for “nipple confusion” brought up this site and these facts about it: http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_confusion.html
    Anyway, sure bottle feeding can be good too, I know many women who bottle fed and their babies ended up fine. However, it is absolutely a woman’s right to decide which way she is most comfortable feeding her child.
    Frankly, I’m glad that the law is the way it is so that women and their babies are protected from people like some of the commenters on this site.

    • Sanveann says:

      My first son had nipple confusion, precisely BECAUSE I was so terrified of trying to nurse in public with him. I was so worried about what people would say or do or think … so I always pumped and brought a bottle … and by the time he was 2 1/2 months old, he screamed bloody murder whenever I tried to nurse him. I saw a LLL leader, a lactation consultant … nothing helped. I ended up exclusively pumping till he turned a year old. I wouldn’t wish that on ANYONE!

      With my second, I decided other people’s opinions be damned … I’m nursing this baby when and where I need/want! I nursed him in church, in restaurants, in the mall, at the park … and not one single person ever said a blessed thing. (Well, I did get some smiles and positive comments … not one single dirty look, even!)

      I live in Michigan, which I don’t consider a bastion of forward thinking, but I guess it’s better than wherever most of the commenters here live!

  74. thebioteacher says:

    Here’s an outline of the situation:

    1. Young babies have to breastfeed every few hours. So unless a mother wants to stay home all day everyday, she has only a tiny window to get out and about (for errands, for socialization, all those necessary things, etc.) Unless she brings her baby and feeds him when he’s hungry. Duh

    2. The law says that breastfeeding cannot be considered an act of public indecency. This is just about the most hilarious statement I’ve ever read. I can’t believe this ever had to be decided in the first place.

    3. Everyone used to be a baby, and everyone had a mother. So no one is removed from this situation.

    4. I, as do most Americans, have a problem seeing someone breastfeed at a resturaunt.

    I know, I know, after all I said about it being such a natural thing and all. It’s just that I, like most Americans, am so far removed from nature and natural things that this, the most natural thing of all, can be unpleasant.

    5. That’s not a mother’s problem. THAT’S OUR PROBLEM. We are the ones that need to change, not mothers. Again… Duh!

    So leave the poor girl alone.

  75. JonBoy470 says:

    Words are escaping me right now…

    Kentucky law explicitly allows a nursing mother to nurse her baby in any public location which she is otherwise allowed to be. Yes, a restaurant can refuse service for any reason but it must be a legal reason. A restaurant can’t refuse service due to a person’s race, gender, nationality and so on because the law designates those as “protected classes.” The Kentucky law similarly defines nursing mothers as a protected class, and goes further by immunizing them against indecent exposure. So no, the restaurant can’t ask her to leave because they would allow her to be there if nursing was not part of the equation.

    Asking a nursing mother to feed her baby in the restroom is unreasonable and unsanitary. Do you typically eat in the same place you defecate? I thought not. Why should the baby have to then? Such a policy would be, in and of itself, discriminatory against the baby.

    The notion that the mother should not leave her home until her baby is weaned is so preposterous that I will offer no further rebuttal. Furthermore, to expect that nursing mothers never nurse their babies outside the home is amazingly unreasonable and unrealistic. Infants have feeding needs that are simultaneously unpredictable and immediate in nature. In the same vein, bottle feeding is not a viable substitute, as breast-fed babies tend to not take well to bottles in general, and pumping and formula have costs and medical implications that render them not an appropriate forced substitution.

    Any mother who is remotely competent at nursing has the ability (and supporting paraphernalia) to allow her to nurse while exposing little, if any, of herself to onlookers. Those yet to attain said competency generally seek privacy of their own accord.

  76. novah says:

    The worst ones are the mothers who think the world evolves around them and their baby. They act like cavemen whipping out their breasts anywhere and everywhere without even covering up. I am convinced some of them do it just to be provocative. These women are simply disrespectful of their environment. They have to accept that not everyone think its appropriate. And it certainly isn’t ok to breastfeed in a restaurant. You go home to do that. The very least thing these women can do is to cover up.