Breast-feeding a civil right under new Washington law

nathan · Jul 23, 2009

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?

sv_libertarian · Jul 23, 2009

imported post

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

cynicist · Jul 24, 2009

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.

nathan · Jul 24, 2009

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?

Mainsail · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

nathan wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

nathan · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

nathan wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?

Click to expand...

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?

Mainsail · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

nathan wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

nathan wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Then why have I been kicked out of movie theaters and shopping malls for bearing arms?

Click to expand...

Because if someone came to your home and started breastfeeding her child there, you could ask her to leave.

Click to expand...

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.

New Daddy · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

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

compmanio365 · Jul 24, 2009

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.

Hammer · Jul 24, 2009

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. :lol:

911Boss · Jul 24, 2009

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. :lol:

That is on OC picnic I will absolutely be attending! :lol:

cynicist · Jul 24, 2009

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.

sv_libertarian · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

nathan wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

sv_libertarian · Jul 24, 2009

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.

Citizen · Jul 24, 2009

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.

sv_libertarian · Jul 24, 2009

imported post

Hmmm you raise good points.

p2a1x7 · Jul 25, 2009

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?

nathan · Jul 25, 2009

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?

FMCDH · Jul 25, 2009

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?

Click to expand...

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

Citizen · Jul 25, 2009

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.

Breast-feeding a civil right under new Washington law

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member