RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not

RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

aravain -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:05:48 PM)
Let me be real simple in my response, WyldHrt: Yes, it does work that way. The law (at least here) allows for an owner to deny service to someone without giving them a reason why. The courts cannot compel the owner to have a reason why this person is no longer permitted (or share it if they do have one), and allows them to make that decision AT ANY TIME. The owner is being accused of ejecting the woman because she is breastfeeding. The owner's defense is that he was ejecting the women because she was not permitted on the premises (the owner does not require a reason for this). If she was not otherwise permitted on the premises, then whether or not she was breastfeeding is insubstantial. There is no breaking of that statute. EDIT TO ADD: Not only does the owner not require a reason for it, he isn't even required to explain at what precise moment she was not permitted there (or when/if she will be permitted back).

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:17:49 PM)
quote: The issue isn't really important anyway. That something is suggestive is not proof... so if a manager asks a woman who is breastfeeding to please take it somewhere private and she refuses, and then he asks her to leave the premises (NOT citing any reason why), and if asked only says that she is no longer permitted on the premises, there's no case with this statute. Again, bullshit. Do you really think a jury (esp a civil jury) is gonna buy "I asked her to go somewhere private to breastfeed and she refused. Then I asked her to leave for no specific reason". You really don't get that there is a law involved here, do you.... sad.

aravain -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:27:01 PM)
There is a statute involved, yes, that has very specific wordings... which you're completely ignoring. Read my last post. If you still don't understand, it's a wash. Even if a jury convicted on grounds like that, it'd get overturned on appeal. Just because he talked to her about the breastfeeding does not mean he's ejecting her because of the breastfeeding. That would be up to HER to prove, not him, and since she can't prove what he was thinking or his reasons for anything, she cannot prove intent to eject her because she was breastfeeding, which means she cannot prove her case, which means she has no case. His side of the conversation would probably go something more like "I asked her to leave my restaurant because she was not permitted on the premises" because he would have no need to bring up the prior conversation (that would be HER job), and when asked if that had any bearing on his decision to bar her from the premises... a simple 'no' would invalidate her entire case. No matter what there is a burden of proof. In this case, SHE has to prove that he broke this law. EDIT: I'm going to bed now... it's 2:30 and there are no ants in sight (judicious wood knocking will ensue, I promise)

GreedyTop -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:29:57 PM)
Aravain.. let me point out this Ohio law once again: "provides that a mother is entitled to breastfeed her baby in any location of a place of public accommodation wherein the mother is otherwise permitted" in other words... if the Mother is not doing anything -QUOTE disruptive END QUOTE other than breastfeeding .. WHICH IS LEGAL.. then the manager/landlord/whatever is NOT- repeat... NOT legally entitled to require her to leave the premises.

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:30:14 PM)
Please provide at least one court case to prove that, aravain, and/or the relevant law citing the owner's rights and the fact that they cannot be compelled in a court of law to give a reason for refusal of service in the face of a discrimination lawsuit. I would be very interested to read that. If you can do so, I really need to talk with my Mom, Dad, Bro, and Sis, cause it's a loophole that needs to be closed.

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:32:45 PM)
BTW... I lubs you, Greedy! [:)]

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:36:10 PM)
quote: and when asked if that had any bearing on his decision to bar her from the premises... a simple 'no' would invalidate her entire case. Even if you were right on this... advocating perjury, nice. [8\|]

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:38:19 PM)
Everyone lubs Greedy!!!

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:39:32 PM)
That's cause she's so lubbable [:D]

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:42:19 PM)
Its Twue, its DAYUM twue

GreedyTop -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:44:49 PM)
blush

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:45:00 PM)
Think Jonnie (or she) would mind if we put her on the bottom of the perv pile? [:D]

Asherdelampyr -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:46:58 PM)
he might unless we got him over the water to come be in it too not sure :P

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:48:02 PM)
He might settle for video... whaddya think, Greedy? [:D]

GreedyTop -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/17/2009 11:49:04 PM)
Ummm.......

Loki45 -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/18/2009 12:01:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aravain No matter what there is a burden of proof. In this case, SHE has to prove that he broke this law. I think I can help the disconnect here. You're thinking in terms of a criminal court proceeding, where the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a 'reasonable doubt' that a crime has been commited. In terms of a civil court, where a lawsuit would take place, one does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather based on a preponderance of evidence. What that basically means is if the woman can get 12 people to 'believe' that her breastfeeding is what led to her ejection, then she wins. And since you can bet there will be women on the jury (or anyone for that matter) with more than half a brain, then convincing them wouldn't be hard. She doesn't have to prove that's why she was ejected, she just has to suggest it. This, I believe is why they have link after link proving their point whereas you do not.

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/18/2009 12:04:33 AM)
quote: Ummm....... Kidding, Greedyone... well, mostly [:D]

GreedyTop -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/18/2009 12:05:30 AM)
Wyld.. you'd have to take it up with him... ::)

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/18/2009 12:10:02 AM)
quote: I think I can help the disconnect here. You're thinking in terms of a criminal court proceeding, where the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a 'reasonable doubt' that a crime has been commited. In terms of a civil court, where a lawsuit would take place, one does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather based on a preponderance of evidence. What that basically means is if the woman can get 12 people to 'believe' that her breastfeeding is what led to her ejection, then she wins. And since you can bet there will be women on the jury (or anyone for that matter) with more than half a brain, then convincing them wouldn't be hard. She doesn't have to prove that's why she was ejected, she just has to suggest it. This, I believe is why they have link after link proving their point whereas you do not. Thank you, Loki. I wasn't clear when I posted about civil vs criminal cases as regards burden of proof. smooch

WyldHrt -> RE: Breastfeeding, taboo or not (6/18/2009 12:12:51 AM)
quote: Wyld.. you'd have to take it up with him... ::) Happy to :)... When are ya coming out here again? [;)]

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125