On what do the atheists and agnostics base their disapproval?

Sorry, I missed your question in the shuffle...

? Atheists and Agnostics who object to open displays of intimate body parts do so for their own reasons, but the ones I've talked to object to it simply because they would rather not be exposed to boobs that don't belong to their wife.

Do you think only religious people have any kind of values or morals?

Hear that atheists and agnostics, according to Iconoclast, if you prefer not to run around naked, you must be a closet believer!! ;~D

Do you think only religious people have any kind of values or morals?

No. I have a few.

Hear that atheists and agnostics, according to Iconoclast, if you prefer not to run around naked, you must be a closet believer!!

Maybe someone is mistaken about what kind of people they are.

I plan to print out my state's laws regarding BFing in public and keep a laminated copy with me so that idiot clerks and others like the flight attendant in the news story can see that they have no right to impose discretion or modesty on me or any other BFing mother.

This got me wondering what the law does say.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm

That link gives some information on the laws around the country. Don't trust all of what it says, though. Just by clicking the Hawaii State Law links and following the cited statutes, I've found it to be highly innacurate and it leaves important notes out. For example, it lists Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 367-3 (1999) as the law that provides protection from discrimination against breastfeeding mothers from employers. There is nothing in statute 367 referring to breastfeeding at all. The paragraph that is listed with that link is actually covered under Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 378-2 (1999), which is also listed on that page but is said to cover breastfeeding mothers and public places. That statute is actually covered by HRS 489.21.

Now, a note about Hawaii law, in the statute that covers employers and discrimination against breastfeeding, the Hawaii Legislature page adds a note at the bottom of the page and says that the law does not prohibit employers from making internal rules covering breastfeeding. My guess is this law was challenged at some point or maybe the note was put there so that challenges had to be specific. For example, it's discriminatory for an employer to fire a breastfeeding mother because she wants to breastfeed (or express - also covered in the law) in the workplace. It may be legal, however, for an employer to set up a separate room for breastfeeding/expressing and then require mothers to use the room exclusively, instead of their desk (or the express check out register). I'm no lawyer but that's just my guess/analysis.

Interestingly, since I wonder if the law was annotated due to a challenge I also wonder could the other law be similarly challenged? For example, could the law about enjoying goods/services be changed to say that businesses could set up internal rules for patrons? Could a restaurant set up a family friendly room and then seat families with breastfed children in that room only? Could Starbucks ask that someone sit behind a divider? As long as the goods/services behind the divider were equal and nothing was withheld? Would that be discriminatory? It certainly would if the patron was of a different religion/race/sex. Could they instead set up a divider and tell breastfeeding mothers not to go behind it, since those patrons chose to sit there so they would not have the chance to accidentally see a breast?

This is long and I'm getting to my point. I think that this is an issue that, if approached with common courtesy on all sides, should be a non-issue. Labeling people who feel uncomfortable in the face of public nudity as outdated over religious prudes does nothing to resolve the issue, and is a sweeping generalization that is inaccurate at best and inflammatory at worst. Likewise, claiming that mothers should hide away in dirty rest room stalls while feeding their child is just as silly.

In my opinion, pointing out and making an object of attention a woman that is discreetly feeding her child and a mother that needlessly flaunts what she's got just because she can are equally wrong. In both cases, neither side has shown any common courtesy and isn't that the norm we should hope is acheived?

Because they consider some natural things to be obscene.

I see. So according to you, because religious people consider something to be obscene, then atheists should automatically not consider them obscene or be offended or embarrassed by them? That's it? That's your whole reasoning? Pretty weak.

What I am getting from a lot of these responses is...

~Only those who choose to bare all in public have any rights whatsoever. 

~The exhibitionist's comfort supercedes that of everyone around them.

~Nursing discreetly is far too difficult to be expected of anyone.

~Indiscreet mother's are free to make other's feel uncomfortable, but no one has the right to make her feel uncomfortable.

~No one with any kind of morals or standards has the right to be in a public place. (yes, this one is an intentional exaggeration... but is basically the rest in a nutshell).

Hey chip, you're right about Hawaii law.

Texas law is very clear on the rights BFing mothers have, but apparently the majority of what has been passed in HI has to do with BFing and employment.

It's too bad HI hasn't stepped up to protect the rights of its BFing mothers in the way that many other states have.

It's too bad HI hasn't stepped up to protect the rights of its BFing mothers in the way that many other states have.

I also checked a little about California while I was at the site. California has gone as far as making an annual Breasfeeding Awareness Week to promote understanding and knowledge for both the mothers and general public. In my opinion, that is the way to solve the issue of public breastfeeding right there. Educate the parents about the benefits and educate the public about the law.