sitter cancelled. couple took baby to $200 plus fancy pre.pay nonrefundable restaurant.

[Xithras]

165. Oh, I agree with you on that point.

The restaurant screwed the pooch when they allowed the child to enter. Once entry was permitted, there was little they could do. I'm not saying that the restaurant should have ejected them once the kid got noisy...I'm saying that the restaurant could have handled this less contentiously by denying them access to the restaurant in the first place.

As to the second bit, I believe that you and I interpret that very differently. I'd guessed that you were going to use breastfeeding laws for your argument, but I simply do not believe that they apply here. Yes, the law grants women the right to breastfeed wherever they want (and to be clear, I have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with that, and all three of my children were breastfed), but it does NOT grant them the right to actually bring their child ANYWHERE. It essentially says "If the mother is allowed to be there, she is allowed to breastfeed". Legally, that's not the same thing as saying "If the mother is allowed to be there, her infant is allowed to accompany her." There's an obvious relation between the two points, but they're not the same thing. Breastfeeding is a protected right here in California, but many workplaces (including my own) flat out prohibit children in the workplace. The laws seem pretty straightforward to me. If the business allows children inside, they have to allow breastfeeding. Any business that WANTS to ban children can still do so, if they're willing to suffer the potential business consequences that will result from that choice. A prohibition against children is NOT the same thing as a prohibition against breastfeeding.