Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Breast-feeding a civil right under new Washington law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    "Washington is joining dozens of other states in protecting the rights of mothers who breast-feed their children in public places like movie theaters, parks and shopping malls."
    http://www.katu.com/news/local/51538187.html

    Why the heck isn't bearing arms a civil right?


  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Ummm in this state it is. Read the state constitution much?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Ummm in this state it is. Read the state constitution much?
    Unless it's changed recently, the Federal Circuit Court has determined that it is not a "civil right" in the sense of having one's civil rights restored after conviction.

    Odd topic though.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Ummm in this state it is. Read the state constitution much?
    Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?


  5. #5
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Ummm in this state it is. Read the state constitution much?
    Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?
    Because if someone came to your home and started breastfeeding her child there, you could ask her to leave.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    nathan wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Ummm in this state it is. Read the state constitution much?
    Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?
    Because if someone came to your home and started breastfeeding her child there, you could ask her to leave.
    Did you read the whole thread? We aren't talking about a home, we're talking about movie theaters and shopping malls where breastfeeding, being a civil right, is protected behavior. If bearing arms is a civil right why is it not protected behavior?


  7. #7
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    nathan wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Ummm in this state it is. Read the state constitution much?
    Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?
    Because if someone came to your home and started breastfeeding her child there, you could ask her to leave.
    Did you read the whole thread? We aren't talking about a home, we're talking about movie theaters and shopping malls where breastfeeding, being a civil right, is protected behavior. If bearing arms is a civil right why is it not protected behavior?
    Well, no I didn't. I tend to avoid following links when it would be easy enough for the OP to copy the text and paste it in the post. The best I can do is try to figure it out from the context. So it sounds like breastfeeding is allowed on private property regardless of the wishes of the property owner? If so, it may be that they are better at lobbying than we are.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    I'm kind of in favor of bare breasts in public.

  9. #9
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    New Daddy wrote:
    I'm kind of in favor of bare breasts in public.
    Depends on the breasts I guess. They aren't all created equal. :P

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Skagit Valley, Washington
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    So if I suck on a breast while OCing that makes it all OK? :celebrate
    Cause, while the logistics might be daunting, the thought is appealing.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Hammer wrote:
    So if I suck on a breast while OCing that makes it all OK? :celebrate
    Cause, while the logistics might be daunting, the thought is appealing.
    That is on OC picnic I will absolutely be attending!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?
    Private property.
    On the other hand, if the government owns everything, then pre-emption would apply everywhere, so you couldn't get kicked out of theaters anymore.


    If so, it may be that they are better at lobbying than we are.
    There is also the fact that few of us are exhibiting something like a plump 19yo rack. If I'm wrong, I've really been getting the wrong PMs.



  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Ummm in this state it is. Read the state constitution much?
    Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?
    Because it's private property and the rights of the property owner trump yours of course.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Actually I thing government overstepped themselves on this one. In public places sure, they can't stop this. But private property is still private property and if the owner doesn't want guns, breast feeding, or annoying white dudes with mullets, they should be able to refuse service.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Actually I thing government overstepped themselves on this one. In public places sure, they can't stop this. But private property is still private property and if the owner doesn't want guns, breast feeding, or annoying white dudes with mullets, they should be able to refuse service.
    Initially, I was inclined to agree with you. But, I wonder.

    At a certain point, breast-feeding can be a convergence of conscience (healthy baby food) and biological necessity.

    I'm not arguing. Just exploring out loud.

    Property rights would seem to allow an owner to say, "No urinating." Yet, many public places seem required to have restrooms for public use.

    If the kid has to be fed, and mom really wants all-natural, I'm not convinced property rights would or should automatically outweigh. I'm sure there would be plenty of circumstances where mom could have feeding time before being in public. I can just as easily see mom needing to be in public for extended periods. Or the little one gets hungry at an otherwise terribly inconvenient time.

    Of course, it could get kinda interesting with those movie theater policies about no outside food or drink.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Hmmm you raise good points.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Property rights would seem to allow an owner to say, "No urinating." Yet, many public places seem required to have restrooms for public use.

    If the kid has to be fed, and mom really wants all-natural, I'm not convinced property rights would or should automatically outweigh. I'm sure there would be plenty of circumstances where mom could have feeding time before being in public. I can just as easily see mom needing to be in public for extended periods. Or the little one gets hungry at an otherwise terribly inconvenient time.

    Of course, it could get kinda interesting with those movie theater policies about no outside food or drink.
    I believe that Washington does not require that private businesses have restrooms for public use. Also businesses have the right to refuse services to anyone, so wouldn't that apply to women who take out their boobies for their babies?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    p2a1x7 wrote:
    Also businesses have the right to refuse services to anyone, so wouldn't that apply to women who take out their boobies for their babies?
    Businesses do not have the right to refuse services to anyone if that person or that persons actions are a protected civil right.

    Apparently that protection, though, needs to be specifically written into the law. Are some civil rights are protected at a state level and some at a federal level?



  19. #19
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    p2a1x7 wrote:
    Also businesses have the right to refuse services to anyone, so wouldn't that apply to women who take out their boobies for their babies?
    Businesses do not have the right to refuse services to anyone if that person or that persons actions are a protected civil right.

    Apparently that protection, though, needs to be specifically written into the law. Are some civil rights are protected at a state level and some at a federal level?

    That would actually be a "protected class" of people, not civil right. Civil rights are a different issue from protected classes of people.

    Yes, protected classes are different from the federal level to the state or local level.

    See this link and its associated links for the details.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class


  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    SNIP Of course, it could get kinda interesting with those movie theater policies about no outside food or drink.
    So, as the responding officer, do you ticket mom for breast-feeding?

    Or, trespass the baby for enjoying outside food and drink?

    I'm so confused.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    That would actually be a "protected class" of people, not civil right. Civil rights are a different issue from protected classes of people.

    Yes, protected classes are different from the federal level to the state or local level.

    See this link and its associated links for the details.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
    Very interesting. Thanks for the link.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sneads Ferry, ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    No matter what else you think about the subject it sure gives a whole new approach to the term open carry.

  23. #23
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    And what if those double barrels loaded and under extreme pressure, could they not be usedas a deadly weapon?
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    jbone,

    Or maybe they could be considered an attractive nuisance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •