Moms stage 'nurse-in' at Target stores

[Shadow]

A Texas mother says she got a bad reaction from Target workers when she sat down in the clothing department to nurse her hungry baby. She says workers tried everything to get her to clear out, and even got the brush off when she called the corporate office.
HLN affiliate, KHOU reports (http://www.khou.com/news/Friendswood-mom-apparently-harrassed-at-Target-for-breastfeeding-receives-support-from-around-the-country-136287673.html)that when she posted her experience on Facebook, the story spread. Now thousands of nursing mothers vow to show their support for her with a "nurse-in" at Target stores in 35 states Wednesday.


http://www.hlntv.com/video/2011/12/28/target-mothers-breast-feeding-nurse?hpt=hp_c1

Anyone witmess a nurse in?

[darin]

I feel sad for the human race when I see people get upset at a woman feeding her child.

[shattered]

Why would she sit down in the middle of the clothing department to do it? Its also supposed to be a quiet bonding time with your child. Whatd she do? Sit on the floor? Targets arent exactly loaded with places to sit.

[Shadow]

Why would she sit down in the middle of the clothing department to do it? Its also supposed to be a quiet bonding time with your child. Whatd she do? Sit on the floor? Targets arent exactly loaded with places to sit.

She could have gone into a dressing room and had complete privacy...instead of whipping out her breasts in front of the customers. When I hear these kind of stories I always feel these people are more concerned about attention seeking then the right to "breast feed".

[ConHog]

She could have gone into a dressing room and had complete privacy...instead of whipping out her breasts in front of the customers. When I hear these kind of stories I always feel these people are more concerned about attention seeking then the right to "breast feed".

Just more " my rights are more important than your rights" bullshit. Lazy bitch couldn't walk out to her car to feed the kid in privacy? Or like you said, go into a restroom or changing room?

If I can't view a perfectly formed 36C in full bounce because some bimbo chooses to go topless in public , I shouldn't have to see some saggy as 44DDD being milked in public.

[darin]

the 36 part is the measurment around the bust and back, not the breast size. I'm a 48A, if I were to wear a bra that is. Or a 'Bro'.

:D

[ConHog]

the 36 part is the measurment around the bust and back, not the breast size. I'm a 48A, if I were to wear a bra that is. Or a 'Bro'.

:D

Yes, not part of the breast size per se, but equally as important. I mean a 36DD is MUCH more attractive than a 50DD.

[fj1200]

Just more " my rights are more important than your rights" bullshit. Lazy bitch couldn't walk out to her car to feed the kid in privacy? Or like you said, go into a restroom or changing room?

So you're opposed to Target employees having to abide by company policy?

[ConHog]

So you're opposed to Target employees having to abide by company policy?

Quite the opposite. I believe Target as a private company should be able to have whatever policy they wish and their employees obviously should follow them. But just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. A person of any decency would go somewhere private to breast feed regardless of the policy of the store she is in.

[fj1200]

Quite the opposite. I believe Target as a private company should be able to have whatever policy they wish and their employees obviously should follow them. But just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. A person of any decency would go somewhere private to breast feed regardless of the policy of the store she is in.

IOW, "shut up and get in line" eh?

[Kathianne]

Quite the opposite. I believe Target as a private company should be able to have whatever policy they wish and their employees obviously should follow them. But just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. A person of any decency would go somewhere private to breast feed regardless of the policy of the store she is in.

Hmm, where is decent? A rest room that is unkempt and bacteria filled? A car in 105F temps or 30F temps? Could it be a mom, leaning against a post, with an infant suckling covered with a blanket?

Does it really matter if the mom is 28AAA or 100DDDD? If the baby is fed and everyone gets home safely at the end of the day?

[pegwinn]

I have no problem with a woman breast feeding in public if she is discreet. Like it or not, public display of the girls is frowned upon unless in specific settings.

I don't see it as a civil right. Not even the ninth amendment can stretch to cover it. So, since it is really a community issue it should be left to the local business owners and the community at large.

[Kathianne]

I have no problem with a woman breast feeding in public if she is discreet. Like it or not, public display of the girls is frowned upon unless in specific settings.

I don't see it as a civil right. Not even the ninth amendment can stretch to cover it. So, since it is really a community issue it should be left to the local business owners and the community at large.

I'm not being coy here, but do you really think that Abigail Adams and other 'founding mothers' were looked upon as harlots for breast feeding? Even if a wet nurse was employed, were they supposed to hide when nursing, or get out there and gather the herbs and crops?

Bottom line is that nursing is natural and so is giving the child a quiet, clean and private space to do so. It's calming. No one is saying that both boobs should be swinging around, indeed quite the contrary. To be left alone.

[pegwinn]

No one, at least not me, was calling anyone a harlot. I mentioned discrestion. Both of my daughters managed to breast feed without causing the old man (me) to blanch in public. No swinging boobs. No drawing attention to themselves. They had a kind of a wraparound blanket thing with velcro in strategic places. The kids got fed and no one in the immediate area had a coronary.

But, had someone been uncomfortable, they would have willingly moved to a quiet space whether that was the restroom or car. No biggie.

I don't see the point in a mass display in a place where the locals are obviously not comfortable. By locals I am including the business owner as well as the people in the immediate vicinity.

Edit: The daughters were mine, feeding my granddaughters. And I think thier businesslike attitude about the whole thing contributed to the lack of drama all around.

[shattered]

I'm not being coy here, but do you really think that Abigail Adams and other 'founding mothers' were looked upon as harlots for breast feeding? Even if a wet nurse was employed, were they supposed to hide when nursing, or get out there and gather the herbs and crops?

Bottom line is that nursing is natural and so is giving the child a quiet, clean and private space to do so. It's calming. No one is saying that both boobs should be swinging around, indeed quite the contrary. To be left alone.

Quiet, clean, and private. Absolutely. However, none of those fit the scenario listed. And, had she been as discreet as possible about it, when confronted, she wouldnt have thrown a hissy fit, would likely have asked if they had another room she could used, and not run to Facebook, of all places.

Its funny that you mention clean quiet and private, and tben ask if she was leaning up against a pole. In the clothing department of Target? No. Likely she was LOOKING for a reaction.

Ick.

[DragonStryk72]

Why would she sit down in the middle of the clothing department to do it? Its also supposed to be a quiet bonding time with your child. Whatd she do? Sit on the floor? Targets arent exactly loaded with places to sit.

Um, first off, it doesn't say "in the middle of", it just says in the clothing department. That's about 1/3 of the store layout right there, so that could be anywhere by a dressing room, which usually has a bench near and is blocked from main traffic view, but would have Target employees nearby.

Second, our nation is really a bunch of pussies on this subject. Love of god, it's a breast, the overwhelming majority of us have had one in our mouth at some point in life, whether for sustenance or fun. What's the fallout from this act? She wasn't having sex in public, she was feeding her baby, and yes, I freely admit I would've have gone several shades of scarlet had I seen, but that's on me, not her.

[shattered]

Um, first off, it doesn't say "in the middle of", it just says in the clothing department. That's about 1/3 of the store layout right there, so that could be anywhere by a dressing room, which usually has a bench near and is blocked from main traffic view, but would have Target employees nearby.

Second, our nation is really a bunch of pussies on this subject. Love of god, it's a breast, the overwhelming majority of us have had one in our mouth at some point in life, whether for sustenance or fun. What's the fallout from this act? She wasn't having sex in public, she was feeding her baby, and yes, I freely admit I would've have gone several shades of scarlet had I seen, but that's on me, not her.

It also doesnt say she was making any attempt at discretion, either, so whats your point? It DOES say she threw a hissy fit, and blabbed about it on the worlds largest gossip network, and if thats not doing something strictly for reaction, rather than the well being of your child, I dont know what is.

Ive seen people breastfeeding in public in McDonalds, the mall, and every place in between, and those that are more interested in their child rather than public scenes get it done without dirty looks, problems or being asked to leave.

[darin]

Second, our nation is really a bunch of pussies on this subject. Love of god, it's a breast, the overwhelming majority of us have had one in our mouth at some point in life, whether for sustenance or fun. What's the fallout from this act? She wasn't having sex in public, she was feeding her baby, and yes, I freely admit I would've have gone several shades of scarlet had I seen, but that's on me, not her.

Spot on. Well said.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2877&d=1325248819

[Shadow]

Spot on. Well said.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2877&d=1325248819


That guys blank not blinking stare is very creepy...were you going for creepy? :laugh:

[Shadow]

Um, first off, it doesn't say "in the middle of", it just says in the clothing department. That's about 1/3 of the store layout right there, so that could be anywhere by a dressing room, which usually has a bench near and is blocked from main traffic view, but would have Target employees nearby.

Second, our nation is really a bunch of pussies on this subject. Love of god, it's a breast, the overwhelming majority of us have had one in our mouth at some point in life, whether for sustenance or fun. What's the fallout from this act? She wasn't having sex in public, she was feeding her baby, and yes, I freely admit I would've have gone several shades of scarlet had I seen, but that's on me, not her.

And so...you just admitted that public breast feeding can make some people uncomfortable (blush). If she is already "by" the dressing rooms...what is the problem with taking it a step further and going "into" the dressing room for privacy. You're happy,customers are happy,store managers are happy...problem avoided completely. It's not that hard.

[Noir]

There's something mildly bizare about our society when breast feeding a baby publicly is an issue, however, if she'd been dragging around a toddler who was stuffing his face with chocolate and Pepsi, and asking him if he wanted to go to McDonalds or Burger King for dinner, no one would of blinked.

[shattered]

There's something mildly bizare about our society when breast feeding a baby publicly is an issue, however, if she'd been dragging around a toddler who was stuffing his face with chocolate and Pepsi, and asking him if he wanted to go to McDonalds or Burger King for dinner, no one would of blinked.

Are you being purposely obtuse? Name one single person that said breast feeding in public is wrong. Once youve named said person, we can move on from there.

[Noir]

It also doesnt say she was making any attempt at discretion, either, so whats your point? It DOES say she threw a hissy fit, and blabbed about it on the worlds largest gossip network, and if thats not doing something strictly for reaction, rather than the well being of your child, I dont know what is.

Ive seen people breastfeeding in public in McDonalds, the mall, and every place in between, and those that are more interested in their child rather than public scenes get it done without dirty looks, problems or being asked to leave.

Except it does, do you think she covered herself with the blanket to be discret or indiscreet?

[Noir]

Are you being purposely obtuse? Name one single person that said breast feeding in public is wrong. Once youve named said person, we can move on from there.

I was making a general comment, when I make specific comments I quote/name users, see above post as an example ^,^

[shattered]

Except it does, do you think she covered herself with the blanket to be discret or indiscreet?

If she were going for discretion, there are much better ways to go about making your point. Facebook isnt one of them.

[shattered]

Anyone using Facebook to announce their problems to the world has serious issues to begin with. Facebook? Really?

[Noir]

If she were going for discretion, there are much better ways to go about making your point. Facebook isnt one of them.

So you're concerned more by the fact that she didn't censure herself from mentioning it on her personal public profile, that the fact that she was discrete and covered herself with a blanket while doing the feeding when she was treated against Targets company policy?

I suggest your view of this discussion would improve (and thus your posts) were it not seen from a 'she posted about it on Facebook!' high horse.

[Shadow]

So you're concerned more by the fact that she didn't censure herself from mentioning it on her personal public profile, that the fact that she was discrete and covered herself with a blanket while doing the feeding when she was treated against Targets company policy?

I suggest you're view of this discussion would improve (and thus your posts) were it not seen from a 'she posted about it on Facebook!' high horse.

I find the bolded comment curious...since you are in the habit of posting issues you have with people that post their private thoughts about things on facebook (their actual comments and snips from their pages even). Christianity/public bible studies,for instance... is one you have taken issue with.

[shattered]

So you're concerned more by the fact that she didn't censure herself from mentioning it on her personal public profile, that the fact that she was discrete and covered herself with a blanket while doing the feeding when she was treated against Targets company policy?

I suggest you're view of this discussion would improve (and thus your posts) were it not seen from a 'she posted about it on Facebook!' high horse.

You mean 'your'? Before you start talking about someone elses high horse, I suggest you get off yours.

But I can see where you would think this entire scenario is just fine. Its your victim mentality. Sorry, but not all of us are that whiny.

[Noir]

I find the bolded comment curious...since you are in the habit of posting issues you have with people that post their private thoughts about things on facebook (their actual comments and snips from their pages even). Like Christianity/public bible studies for instance is one you have taken issue with.

I have no issue with people posting their thoughts on their Facebook, they can post whatever they like, but i can take issue with what they post from a political viewpoint just asif they were posting it on a political forum or saying there status to my face in a conversation.

No conflict.

[Noir]

You mean 'your'? Before you start talking about someone elses high horse, I suggest you get off yours.

But I can see where you would think this entire scenario is just fine. Its your victim mentality. Sorry, but not all of us are that whiny.

Already corrected, anyways you've chosen not to answer the question or discuss the issue, I see our convo going nowhere in this thread but personal gibberish, so i'll leave it at that.

[Shadow]

I have no issue with people posting their thoughts on their Facebook, they can post whatever they like, but i can take issue with what they post from a political viewpoint just asif they were posting it on a political forum or saying there status to my face in a conversation.

No conflict.

Sure you do...or you would not post their thoughts on this board (without their permission BTW) railing against their views.

[Noir]

Sure you do...or you would not post their thoughts on this board (without their permission BTW) railing against their views.

...i don't see where the problem is here? Someone made a post thy were perfectly entitled to make, and i wanted to discuss it on this board, by choosing to post publicly they are giving anyone who wants the right to screenshot the page (iirc the person who did was at a teacher training college with) the right to do so.

Anyways, posting that lead to some posts from (i believe) Nukeman, that explained what had probably happened to me and cured my ignorance of what likely went on. Which is more or less the point of discussions on a political board.

Anyways, this is all wildly off topic. The point is simple 'Post whatever you want on your blog/fb/twitter... and i'll happily discuss if i agree or disagree with it.' Discussing a post/status etc and saying you disagree with the meaning/motivation behind the post/status is not synonymous with saying 'this post/status should never of been made' (mildly ironic that i'm having to point this out on a discussion forum lol)

[Gunny]

IOW, "shut up and get in line" eh?

IOW, as a private company, it has the right to have whatever rules it wants you agree to abide by them by walking in the door. Don't like the rules? Don't shop at Target.

[shattered]

I have no issue with people posting their thoughts on their Facebook, they can post whatever they like, but i can take issue with what they post from a political viewpoint just asif they were posting it on a political forum or saying there status to my face in a conversation.

No conflict.

The only opinions you dont seem to take issue with aee your own.

Once again, millions of women manage to breast feed in public every day, and you dont hear a word about it. Why do you suppose that is?

[Noir]

IOW, as a private company, it has the right to have whatever rules it wants you agree to abide by them by walking in the door. Don't like the rules? Don't shop at Target.

So lets see what the company in question says!


"As a family-oriented retailer, Target has a long-standing corporate policy that supports breastfeeding in our stores. We want everyone to feel comfortable shopping at Target. Guests who choose to breastfeed in public areas of the store are welcome to do so without being made to feel uncomfortable. Additionally, we support the use of fitting rooms for women who wish to breastfeed their babies, even if others are waiting to use the fitting rooms.We continually educate our team members in stores across the country on store policies to ensure all guests have a great experience.
We worked with this guest directly to address her concerns and are sorry any inconvenience it has caused.
Target is proud to support all mothers who breastfeed year-round, including today."

Erm.

[jimnyc]

...i don't see where the problem is here? Someone made a post thy were perfectly entitled to make, and i wanted to discuss it on this board, by choosing to post publicly they are giving anyone who wants the right to screenshot the page (iirc the person who did was at a teacher training college with) the right to do so.

My FB page is shared with everyone one my friends list, and no one beyond that. I don't know the specifics of your and your friends settings - but if someone takes screenshots of my FB personal pages, I'm gonna be awfully pissed!

[Shadow]

...i don't see where the problem is here? Someone made a post thy were perfectly entitled to make, and i wanted to discuss it on this board, by choosing to post publicly they are giving anyone who wants the right to screenshot the page (iirc the person who did was at a teacher training college with) the right to do so.

Anyways, posting that lead to some posts from (i believe) Nukeman, that explained what had probably happened to me and cured my ignorance of what likely went on. Which is more or less the point of discussions on a political board.

Anyways, this is all wildly off topic. The point is simple 'Post whatever you want on your blog/fb/twitter... and i'll happily discuss if i agree or disagree with it.' Discussing a post/status etc and saying you disagree with the meaning/motivation behind the post/status is not synonymous with saying 'this post/status should never of been made' (mildly ironic that i'm having to point this out on a discussion forum lol)

You are the one who brought up that certain people need to "get off their high horse" about taking issue with folks who feel the need to post on facebook about certain causes. I just thought that was pretty ironic since you do the same thing....infact... you wanted them to get in trouble over it.

[shattered]

So lets see what the company in question says!



Erm.

So.. they worked directly with her to ddress her concerns. Why the big blow up and mass chaos? Simple. She wanted attention.

[Gunny]

Hmm, where is decent? A rest room that is unkempt and bacteria filled? A car in 105F temps or 30F temps? Could it be a mom, leaning against a post, with an infant suckling covered with a blanket?

Does it really matter if the mom is 28AAA or 100DDDD? If the baby is fed and everyone gets home safely at the end of the day?


I'm not being coy here, but do you really think that Abigail Adams and other 'founding mothers' were looked upon as harlots for breast feeding? Even if a wet nurse was employed, were they supposed to hide when nursing, or get out there and gather the herbs and crops?

Bottom line is that nursing is natural and so is giving the child a quiet, clean and private space to do so. It's calming. No one is saying that both boobs should be swinging around, indeed quite the contrary. To be left alone.

In both posts you use extremes as examples. Most department stores; especially, big chains, keep their restrooms clean, and provide cushioned benches in the ladies rooms and changing tables in both restrooms. We aren't talking about her car, nor leaning against a post -- we're talking about a woman in women's section of Target.

Abigail Adams is a poor example. She didn't have to work in the field.

Bottom line is, there are lots of things that are natural we can't do in public.

[ConHog]

Hmm, where is decent? A rest room that is unkempt and bacteria filled? A car in 105F temps or 30F temps? Could it be a mom, leaning against a post, with an infant suckling covered with a blanket?

Does it really matter if the mom is 28AAA or 100DDDD? If the baby is fed and everyone gets home safely at the end of the day?

So there was just no other option than to whip it out in front of my kids? How about a changing room? I would hazard to guess that there would be no more bacteria there then there is in the store in general.

Let me ask the question in reverse. What if the store had a policy of no breast feeding in public view.

[jimnyc]

IOW, "shut up and get in line" eh?


IOW, as a private company, it has the right to have whatever rules it wants you agree to abide by them by walking in the door. Don't like the rules? Don't shop at Target.


So lets see what the company in question says!

Erm.

Regardless of what statement the company released after getting bad press, it still makes sense to be as discreet as possible when breastfeeding. In this store, they chose to confront her and ask her to be more discreet. That is their right, and if you don't like it there are millions of other places to shop. If she was so horrified about being singled out, she should be equally horrified at the sharing of her story on FB.

When confronted, she could have agreed to be more discreet and that would have been the end of this story, but she CHOSE to make it a story.

Their store, their rules - and both employees and shoppers will follow them, or work/shop elsewhere.

[Noir]

You are the one who brought up that certain people need to "get off their high horse" about taking issue with folks who feel the need to post on facebook about certain causes. I just thought that was pretty ironic since you do the same thing....infact... you wanted them to get in trouble over it.

The difference is 'shattered' is saying 'this should not of been posted on facebook'

Whereas mine have been 'saw this posted on Facebook, lets discuss'

at no point have i said 'this person shouldn't be posting about their life on their facebook'

[Gunny]

So lets see what the company in question says!



Erm.

Uh-huh. PC back peddlers. Like you.

[Shadow]

The difference is 'shattered' is saying 'this should not of been posted on facebook'

Whereas mine have been 'saw this posted on Facebook, lets discuss'

at no point have i said 'this person shouldn't be posting about their life on their facebook'

No...you were just hoping that by the comments being made public (like you were doing) it would then get the FB person in trouble...and put an end to their bible study. It may have been a "discussion"...but the "discussion" involved the fact that they posted about their bible study on a social network...and it was now a "gotcha" kind of senario.

[Noir]

No...you were just hoping that by the comments being made public (like you were doing) it would then get the FB person in trouble...and put an end to their bible study. It may have been a "discussion"...but the "discussion" involved the fact that they posted about their bible study on a social network...and it was now a "gotcha" kind of senario.

Lawl, if you say so.

[shattered]

My name doesnt need to be put in quotes.. Im right here.. ...waves...

[Noir]

Regardless of what statement the company released after getting bad press, it still makes sense to be as discreet as possible when breastfeeding. In this store, they chose to confront her and ask her to be more discreet. That is their right, and if you don't like it there are millions of other places to shop. If she was so horrified about being singled out, she should be equally horrified at the sharing of her story on FB.

When confronted, she could have agreed to be more discreet and that would have been the end of this story, but she CHOSE to make it a story.

Their store, their rules - and both employees and shoppers will follow them, or work/shop elsewhere.

I'd say sitting on the floor covered with a blanket was pretty decreet but it seems i'll all but alone in thinking that.

But i concour, i don't see thew point of the sit in, just refuse to buy there again.

Anyways, it'll all be forgotten about in a week, though this should be a short sharp lesson for target and similar stores, social media has given a lot of power (rightly or wrongly) to the little folk, where before such a story could never be a story.

[shattered]

I'd say sitting on the floor covered with a blanket was pretty decreet but it seems i'll all but alone in thinking that.

But i concour, i don't see thew point of the sit in, just refuse to buy there again.

Anyways, it'll all be forgotten about in a week, though this should be a short sharp lesson for target and similar stores, social media has given a lot of power (rightly or wrongly) to the little folk, where before such a story could never be a story.

Sitting on the floor in a public place where tbe general population is walking around you is hardly discreet.

[jimnyc]

I'd say sitting on the floor covered with a blanket was pretty decreet but it seems i'll all but alone in thinking that.

But i concour, i don't see thew point of the sit in, just refuse to buy there again.

Anyways, it'll all be forgotten about in a week, though this should be a short sharp lesson for target and similar stores, social media has given a lot of power (rightly or wrongly) to the little folk, where before such a story could never be a story.

Sitting on the floor in a department store is discreet? People walk all over the floors, in every department, and I assure you that someone sitting in an aisle or against a wall or in the middle of clothes, they will be noticed. Proof of that is just how did Target find out what this woman was doing? Someone obviously saw her. I'm not against breastfeeding, nor doing so in public, but I think being discreet is extremely easy to do in situations like this. She chose to do it out in the open in the store. The store chose to ask her to go to a location that was more discreet. Sounds fair all the way around to me. They could have told her to get out and go home, but they didn't.

[Noir]

Sitting on the floor in a public place where tbe general population is walking around you is hardly discreet.

Well in your own words "Ive seen people breastfeeding in public in McDonalds, the mall, and every place in between and those that are more interested in their child rather than public scenes get it done without dirty looks, problems or being asked to leave"

So aslong as she ignored the dirty looks, discretion doesn't seem to be your concern. Or have you changed your mind on that?

[Noir]

Sitting on the floor in a department store is discreet? People walk all over the floors, in every department, and I assure you that someone sitting in an aisle or against a wall or in the middle of clothes, they will be noticed. Proof of that is just how did Target find out what this woman was doing? Someone obviously saw her. I'm not against breastfeeding, nor doing so in public, but I think being discreet is extremely easy to do in situations like this. She chose to do it out in the open in the store. The store chose to ask her to go to a location that was more discreet. Sounds fair all the way around to me. They could have told her to get out and go home, but they didn't.

You're not against breast feeding in public, but think that feeding a baby covered by a blanket is not discreet enough?

[shattered]

Well in your own words "Ive seen people breastfeeding in public in McDonalds, the mall, and every place in between and those that are more interested in their child rather than public scenes get it done without dirty looks, problems or being asked to leave"

So aslong as she ignored the dirty looks, discretion doesn't seem to be your concern. Or have you changed your mind on that?

Wow. You ARE being purposely obtuse.

Fruitcake.

[Noir]

Wow. You ARE being purposely obtuse.

Fruitcake.

Sorry if quoting your own words was being obtuse, i'll know better in future.

[jimnyc]

You're not against breast feeding in public, but think that feeding a baby covered by a blanket is not discreet enough?

There are TONS of place that are "public" where the entire store doesn't walk into. Again - how did the employees find out she was doing so in the clothing department? Someone obviously complained, and they did their job by addressing the complaint. They made BOTH happy by offering her a more discreet place to do her breastfeeding - she CHOSE to make an issue of it instead.

[ConHog]

I have no issue with people posting their thoughts on their Facebook, they can post whatever they like, but i can take issue with what they post from a political viewpoint just asif they were posting it on a political forum or saying there status to my face in a conversation.

No conflict.

I don't have a problem with posting whatever on FB either, don't even care. Not like she ran to the media crying that TSA (Target Security Agents) violated her imagined rights. SHe posted on a web page provided for her to post about whatever she wants.

I just don't understand why anyone wouldn't have a little humility and go out of public view to feed a baby. Oh and as to your OTHER point, I also have a problem with parents who let their children misbehave in public.

[Noir]

There are TONS of place that are "public" where the entire store doesn't walk into. Again - how did the employees find out she was doing so in the clothing department? Someone obviously complained, and they did their job by addressing the complaint. They made BOTH happy by offering her a more discreet place to do her breastfeeding - she CHOSE to make an issue of it instead.

Well someone didn't "obviously" complain, could of easily been a employee just seeing her, that much we don't know.

Quiet why the employees had to tut at her etc is beyond me, and in any case the fact that anyone could have a problem with a woman breast feeding (never mind one under a cover) shows something very wrong imo.

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps it is just me, but I don't understand why a mom would want to do something as personal as nursing in public. Do they think that no one will notice?
I have several friends who have had kids and none of them ever felt the need to nurse in a public place.

[Noir]

I don't have a problem with posting whatever on FB either, don't even care. Not like she ran to the media crying that TSA (Target Security Agents) violated her imagined rights. SHe posted on a web page provided for her to post about whatever she wants.

I just don't understand why anyone wouldn't have a little humility and go out of public view to feed a baby. Oh and as to your OTHER point, I also have a problem with parents who let their children misbehave in public.

She should of had a little humility? i.e. be ashamed of the fact of breast feeding?

[Abbey Marie]

She ran to FB because she knew the breast-feeding crowd is rather militant on the subject. La Leche, Nursing Mothers, etc.

[jimnyc]

Well someone didn't "obviously" complain, could of easily been a employee just seeing her, that much we don't know.

Quiet why the employees had to tut at her etc is beyond me, and in any case the fact that anyone could have a problem with a woman breast feeding (never mind one under a cover) shows something very wrong imo.

Doesn't matter to me as I wasn't there. But I know if it were my wife, and I was with her, and an employee politely asked her to use the facilities afforded that they don't want it out in the open of the clothing department, I would happily oblige and help my wife to the facilities. If no one says anything, fine. If they do, fine. Either way, it's the stores decision and should be honored - or go elsewhere. Or alternatively one could share their disdain on FB like attention whores.

[Noir]

She ran to FB because she knew the breast-feeding crowd is rather militant on the subject. La Leche, Nursing Mothers, etc.

So she shouldn't of posted about her life experiences on her personal blog for her and her friends? How was she to know it would end up drawing such attention?

I memo several months ago i got treated really badly by a phone company and posted about it on my blog, as it happened, nothing happened, as expected, but should i of not posted about it just incase it went viral and suddenly there was a whole big storm around it?

[jimnyc]

So she shouldn't of posted about her life experiences on her personal blog for her and her friends? How was she to know it would end up drawing such attention?

I memo several months ago i got treated really badly by a phone company and posted about it on my blog, as it happened, nothing happened, as expected, but should i of not posted about it just incase it went viral and suddenly there was a whole big storm around it?

FB is not a personal blog. Anything you post, and then replied to by a variety of friends, is now accessible based on your friends privacy settings as well. Posting anything you consider "private" on your FB page is outright stupid.

[Abbey Marie]

So she shouldn't of posted about her life experiences on her personal blog for her and her friends? How was she to know it would end up drawing such attention?

I memo several months ago i got treated really badly by a phone company and posted about it on my blog, as it happened, nothing happened, as expected, but should i of not posted about it just incase it went viral and suddenly there was a whole big storm around it?

You give her and her friends more innocent motivation than they obviously deserve, given the outcome of her posting.

[Noir]

You give her and her friends more innocent motivation than they obviously deserve, given the outcome of her posting.

She's responsible for the outcome? She was *much* more likey to have posted her story, got a few likes and a few comments from friends, like in 99.999% of all Facebook statuses, has it happens she's been part of the 0.001% thats suddenly nation wide news, how would you expect her to expect that?

also you didn't answer my second question

[jimnyc]

She's responsible for the outcome?

What would have happened with this story if she simply went elsewhere as politely requested, then resumed her shopping?

[Noir]

What would have happened with this story if she simply went elsewhere as politely requested, then resumed her shopping?

We were not there, so don't know how she was asked or what the tone/attitude of the sales people were, however, we do know that target has a company policy to let women breast feed in their stores, and that she was doing so under the cover of a blanket.

Again though the underlying problem is that anyone could have a problem with a breast feeding baby in the first place.

[jimnyc]

We were not there, so don't know how she was asked or what the tone/attitude of the sales people were, however, we do know that target has a company policy to let women breast feed in their stores, and that she was doing so under the cover of a blanket.

Again though the underlying problem is that anyone could have a problem with a breast feeding baby in the first place.

I wouldn't want my son walking by and seeing a woman breastfeeding in the clothing department. While it's natural, there are more appropriate places to do so. There's no need to purposely do it wherever you please and then make a stink about it if you don't get your way. And I don't care what their "policy" is - if it was disruptive to just ONE person, then they are correct in asking her to do so in the facilities.

[jimnyc]

We were not there,

You keep alluding to this, so... How do we know that she didn't throw a hissy fit right from ths start, curse them out and state she would go public if she didn't get her way? We weren't there..

[Noir]

I wouldn't want my son walking by and seeing a woman breastfeeding in the clothing department. While it's natural, there are more appropriate places to do so. There's no need to purposely do it wherever you please and then make a stink about it if you don't get your way. And I don't care what their "policy" is - if it was disruptive to just ONE person, then they are correct in asking her to do so in the facilities.

Well thats the problem built into the system, you know its natural, you know its necessary, but have your child see such an act take place? Unthinkable.

[Noir]

You keep alluding to this, so... How do we know that she didn't throw a hissy fit right from ths start, curse them out and state she would go public if she didn't get her way? We weren't there..

Maybe she did, i don't know.

[ConHog]

She should of had a little humility? i.e. be ashamed of the fact of breast feeding?

Humility =/= being ashamed Noir.

Taking a shit is natural to, but we aren't animals, so we don't just take a shit out in the open. Why not? I mean really are you ashamed that you have to take a shit?

[jimnyc]

Maybe she did, i don't know.

Then why on earth would you be here sticking up for her and what she did in Target if you have no idea what took place?

[shattered]

Sorry if quoting your own words was being obtuse, i'll know better in future.

Let me get this straight.. she sat on the floor wherever she pleased. Didnt bother wasting time looking for a more suitable, and private location, but its the customers and stores problem and theyre 100% in the wrong? Talk about a 'me me' mentality. Yuck.

[Jess]

I find it humorous that, for the most part, people arguing about this have never nursed a child. Period.

That being said, I nursed my kids wherever the heck I was when they needed to be fed or I needed the release, if you will. Those who haven't breastfed babies will never understand the triggers and those who have will never forget. Lol!

Anyway, it can be and should be done discretely. I nursed babies while eating dinner in a restaurant, sitting on a friends' couch, in my car - wherever. And most times people didn't know. And even though they were rather impressive at the time, there was never a need for anyone except my baby to see my breasts.

Does she have a right to nurse her baby in Target? Dunno. Apparently she didn't have the ability to do it without causing a scene, either during or after. Is this being totally blown out of proportion? Most definitely.

[Thunderknuckles]

When I hear these kind of stories I always feel these people are more concerned about attention seeking then the right to "breast feed".
That about sums up the entire story and my feelings on the issue.

[Jess]

Perhaps it is just me, but I don't understand why a mom would want to do something as personal as nursing in public. Do they think that no one will notice?
I have several friends who have had kids and none of them ever felt the need to nurse in a public place.

It depends. Sometimes that is the best, most efficient way to calm your baby. There is also the issue of feeling as though you're going to explode and physical pain prompts a mother to do an impromptu nursing session.

It is personal at times, or in certain respects, yet a mere biological function at the same time. Very difficult to explain.

[ConHog]

It depends. Sometimes that is the best, most efficient way to calm your baby. There is also the issue of feeling as though you're going to explode and physical pain prompts a mother to do an impromptu nursing session.

It is personal at times, or in certain respects, yet a mere biological function at the same time. Very difficult to explain.

Sometimes I have a painful need to shit to. I still don't squat in the middle of Target and do my business.

[fj1200]

IOW, as a private company, it has the right to have whatever rules it wants you agree to abide by them by walking in the door. Don't like the rules? Don't shop at Target.

Ummmm, yes. This will make zero difference on whether I shop at Target or not.


Regardless of what statement the company released after getting bad press, it still makes sense to be as discreet as possible when breastfeeding. In this store, they chose to confront her and ask her to be more discreet. That is their right, and if you don't like it there are millions of other places to shop. If she was so horrified about being singled out, she should be equally horrified at the sharing of her story on FB.

When confronted, she could have agreed to be more discreet and that would have been the end of this story, but she CHOSE to make it a story.

Their store, their rules - and both employees and shoppers will follow them, or work/shop elsewhere.

Based on the statement the company was clarifying their rules, not creating their rules on the fly. BTW, I have seen plenty of women breastfeeding in various places, including the local pool, and not once have I seen a nipple; They can be highly discreet even in a highly visible location. She certainly has the right to make this a story when it involves Target employees not following their own policies.

[shattered]

It depends. Sometimes that is the best, most efficient way to calm your baby. There is also the issue of feeling as though you're going to explode and physical pain prompts a mother to do an impromptu nursing session.

It is personal at times, or in certain respects, yet a mere biological function at the same time. Very difficult to explain.

Nah. You explained it well. While also pointing out that you managed to do it in public, as needed without causing a scene.

[Noir]

FB is not a personal blog. Anything you post, and then replied to by a variety of friends, is now accessible based on your friends privacy settings as well. Posting anything you consider "private" on your FB page is outright stupid.

It is a personal blog, not a private blog, big difference.

[fj1200]

What would have happened with this story if she simply went elsewhere as politely requested, then resumed her shopping?

Target employees would remain ignorant to their own policy.


I wouldn't want my son walking by and seeing a woman breastfeeding in the clothing department. While it's natural, there are more appropriate places to do so. There's no need to purposely do it wherever you please and then make a stink about it if you don't get your way. And I don't care what their "policy" is - if it was disruptive to just ONE person, then they are correct in asking her to do so in the facilities.

I have no problem with my son seeing that and we didn't when my wife breastfed the younger kids. It's no big deal.

They are not correct if "just ONE person" complains. "Just ONE person" will complain about anything. Targets seems to value the BF clientele, and supporters, over the complaints of the very few.

[ConHog]

Ummmm, yes. This will make zero difference on whether I shop at Target or not.



Based on the statement the company was clarifying their rules, not creating their rules on the fly. BTW, I have seen plenty of women breastfeeding in various places, including the local pool, and not once have I seen a nipple; They can be highly discreet even in a highly visible location. She certainly has the right to make this a story when it involves Target employees not following their own policies.

A private company has the right do adjust/modify/ignore their own policies at will. Just as you have the right to change your mind at will.

[Abbey Marie]

I had an aunt who was very much the earth mother type, who came to visit at my parent's home while I was still living there. She was breast feeding her baby at the time. While she and we were all seated at the table (including my father, and one of my brothers, me, etc.) She took out her breast, left it completely uncovered, and started nursing. The men all left the room, as they were very uncomfortable.

She was in a home, and all she had to do was excuse herself and go into any other room. But she was making a statement. And to heck with anyone else who didn't want to see a relative's breast.

This is what I mean by being militant about breast-feeding.

[fj1200]

Sometimes I have a painful need to shit to. I still don't squat in the middle of Target and do my business.

Rest assured that you could though once you get Target to change their policy on that.

[fj1200]

A private company has the right do adjust/modify/ignore their own policies at will. Just as you have the right to change your mind at will.

They can ignore at their peril.

[fj1200]

This is what I mean by being militant about breast-feeding.

Who said she was militant?

[ConHog]

Rest assured that you could though once you get Target to change their policy on that.

The point however is that even if they a big giant poster up saying "yes you can take a shit right in the middle of our store" and other people were doing so, modesty would prevent me from doing it.

[Abbey Marie]

Who said she was militant?

I did, oh contrary one. :laugh2:

[ConHog]

They can ignore at their peril.

Their peril meaning of course nothing more than a few customers getting mad.

However that doesn't change the FACT that no one has a right to have a private store follow their written policies.

[jimnyc]

They can ignore at their peril.

What peril can they possibly get into if they "change" their own policy and ask a woman to use the facilities to breastfeed?

[jimnyc]

It is a personal blog, not a private blog, big difference.

And ANYTHING you post on there, no matter what you call it, can much too easily go public. If it's on the internet, it can be found. She WANTED to make a big deal out of something that wasn't that big of a deal.

[ConHog]

What peril can they possibly get into if they "change" their own policy and ask a woman to use the facilities to breastfeed?

FJ's fury. :laugh2:

[ConHog]

And ANYTHING you post on there, no matter what you call it, can much too easily go public. If it's on the internet, it can be found. She WANTED to make a big deal out of something that wasn't that big of a deal.

WHAAAAAAAAAAT!!! Are you suggesting that some people (re: they stole my cupcake) are just looking to try to cause problems by making niggly complaints public?

[jimnyc]

FJ's fury. :laugh2:

They are free to change their policies whenever they feel like it and shoppers are free to stop shopping there whenever they feel like it. They offered a fitting room that is just as clean as the "clothing department floor", if not more so than a floor, where other customers don't have to feel awkward. She chose to bitch and moan instead. She blabbed where she could. Target came in and did damage control. "IF" someone complained, I feel it's in Target's best interest to make both happy. Going a few feet to a fitting room wouldn't have put her out of her way, and this way everyone is happy. But it's much more fun to demand rights and bitch and moan!

[fj1200]

The point however is that even if they a big giant poster up saying "yes you can take a shit right in the middle of our store" and other people were doing so, modesty would prevent me from doing it.

No, one point is that it would be the policy of the store and the second point is how stupid a comparison you are making.


Their peril meaning of course nothing more than a few customers getting mad.

However that doesn't change the FACT that no one has a right to have a private store follow their written policies.

The peril in this case is that they are alienating an entire group of people who spend a lot of money on baby stuff and all of it to no productive end because they don't know their own store's policy. I laugh at your FACT, I'm guessing the local store is pretty well bound by corporate policy.


I did, oh contrary one. :laugh2:

So unless you can show that she was militantly breast feeding, it's really not of issue is it?

[fj1200]

What peril can they possibly get into if they "change" their own policy and ask a woman to use the facilities to breastfeed?

They could alienate a group of people who spend a lot of money on baby stuff. Besides, CH argued that they could "ignore," not "change," their own policy but it doesn't appear that worked out to well for the local store.


They are free to change their policies whenever they feel like it and shoppers are free to stop shopping there whenever they feel like it. They offered a fitting room that is just as clean as the "clothing department floor", if not more so than a floor, where other customers don't have to feel awkward. She chose to bitch and moan instead. She blabbed where she could. Target came in and did damage control. "IF" someone complained, I feel it's in Target's best interest to make both happy. Going a few feet to a fitting room wouldn't have put her out of her way, and this way everyone is happy. But it's much more fun to demand rights and bitch and moan!

You're arguing the local store has the authority to change corporate policy of their own volition? She wasn't doing anything to violate policy, which I'm pretty sure she was well aware of, so why should she have to move due to local store ignorance.

I would also guess that the locals could have handled the situation better.

[jimnyc]

The peril in this case is that they are alienating an entire group of people who spend a lot of money on baby stuff and all of it to no productive end because they don't know their own store's policy. I laugh at your FACT, I'm guessing the local store is pretty well bound by corporate policy.

And these protests and alienation have been done before for the exact same reason, and it never amounted to anything. Each case is different and the stores should handle accordingly. I'm sure some mothers expose more than others. Applebees recently did the same thing and the Mom refused, then they setup the "sit-ins" just like Target, and not a damn thing ever came of it. And the only reason Applebees did this in the particular instance is because of a complaint. While stores have "policies", they also have to deal with any complaints, and that might require a change to the policy to make everyone happy.

[fj1200]

FJ's fury. :laugh2:

You're the one who gets upset when people follow policy. :confused:

[jimnyc]

They could alienate a group of people who spend a lot of money on baby stuff. Besides, CH argued that they could "ignore," not "change," their own policy but it doesn't appear that worked out to well for the local store.

Answered already...


You're arguing the local store has the authority to change corporate policy of their own volition? She wasn't doing anything to violate policy, which I'm pretty sure she was well aware of, so why should she have to move due to local store ignorance.

If someone complained, management certainly does reserve the right to to take action to make all their customers happy. And a complaint doesn't equal ignorance. You have no idea how much she exposed, and perhaps it was too much and she offended someone. In that case, I would expect Target to step in and correct the action. I'm confident her moving a few feet wouldn't hurt her, while her being exposed could potentially "hurt" those not wanting to see her exposed.

[fj1200]

And these protests and alienation have been done before for the exact same reason, and it never amounted to anything. Each case is different and the stores should handle accordingly. I'm sure some mothers expose more than others. Applebees recently did the same thing and the Mom refused, then they setup the "sit-ins" just like Target, and not a damn thing ever came of it. And the only reason Applebees did this in the particular instance is because of a complaint. While stores have "policies", they also have to deal with any complaints, and that might require a change to the policy to make everyone happy.

Yes, the stores should follow their policy for one. Did Applebees ignore their own policy as well? I never argued that a store could not change policy.

[fj1200]

If someone complained, management certainly does reserve the right to to take action to make all their customers happy. And a complaint doesn't equal ignorance. You have no idea how much she exposed, and perhaps it was too much and she offended someone. In that case, I would expect Target to step in and correct the action. I'm confident her moving a few feet wouldn't hurt her, while her being exposed could potentially "hurt" those not wanting to see her exposed.

Neither do you but your argument rests on the assumption that she wasn't discreet and/or exposed too much.

[jimnyc]

Yes, the stores should follow their policy for one. Did Applebees ignore their own policy as well? I never argued that a store could not change policy.

Even if they "ignore" policy, that is their right, and a decision that is best left to management based on the situation. They can ignore it. They can change it. They can leave it as policy and then never let a woman breastfeed. Any and all of the above is their right as a business owner.

[fj1200]

Even if they "ignore" policy, that is their right, and a decision that is best left to management based on the situation. They can ignore it. They can change it. They can leave it as policy and then never let a woman breastfeed. Any and all of the above is their right as a business owner.

Ignoring policy get's you sued; not in this case I'm sure though. The "owner" sets policy which happens to be at corporate in this case.

[jimnyc]

Neither do you but your argument rests on the assumption that she wasn't discreet and/or exposed too much.

I believe Target's policy, from what I'm reading, is recommending and supporting women that need to breastfeed to use a fitting room. But if a mother must, she shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable in public. So they are basing their policy on "comfort level" - and why shouldn't they take the comfort level of other shoppers into account?

[jimnyc]

Ignoring policy get's you sued; not in this case I'm sure though. The "owner" sets policy which happens to be at corporate in this case.

Case history? Anyone can sue for whatever the hell they want, but it's FAR from illegal for a company to ignore it's own policy. That's laughable. The only time that would even be REMOTELY true would be in the case of contracts, like policy pertaining to purchases/returns and what is on the receipt. Outside of that they can ignore their policies whenever they damn well please.

[ConHog]

Ignoring policy get's you sued; not in this case I'm sure though. The "owner" sets policy which happens to be at corporate in this case.

Sure , people sue for all sorts of reasons all the time. It sure doesn't mean the company has violated anyone's rights if they ignore their own policy.


And as Jim is saying. What about the comfort level of customers who don't wish to see that sort of thing in public? You're suggesting that since they a big portion of their customers are mothers their comfort level should come first, but I would suggest that the number of mothers who feel comfortable breast feeding right in public is very small even compared to the group of mothers who would not do so, not even taking into account the customers who are NOT mothers .

[ConHog]

Case history? Anyone can sue for whatever the hell they want, but it's FAR from illegal for a company to ignore it's own policy. That's laughable. The only time that would even be REMOTELY true would be in the case of contracts, like policy pertaining to purchases/returns and what is on the receipt. Outside of that they can ignore their policies whenever they damn well please.

Yeah like we were talking about in a thread the other day. If you're talking about a employee/employer contract or return policies things like that, then yes those are implied contracts. But there is no implied contract stating that a customer can breast feed in plain view.

[DragonStryk72]

It also doesnt say she was making any attempt at discretion, either, so whats your point? It DOES say she threw a hissy fit, and blabbed about it on the worlds largest gossip network, and if thats not doing something strictly for reaction, rather than the well being of your child, I dont know what is.

Ive seen people breastfeeding in public in McDonalds, the mall, and every place in between, and those that are more interested in their child rather than public scenes get it done without dirty looks, problems or being asked to leave.

My point is that an assumption was made, and that assumption was wrong. And you gossip on world's largest gossip network, since, you know, we're talking about it right now on the internet. Hell, the point of this site pretty much breaks down to gossiping, just about particular subjects, so everyone here can be hit with that label, shattered.

Simply because it has been done without trouble elsewhere does not necessarily mean that she was doing something wrong here. How did the Target employees treat her? I mean, come on, I'm a big Wal-Mart shopper, and even I've running into the occasional hooting dickhole on staff, so it's entirely possible that there was some fouling of the line by the staff. Was she out of the way when she was breast feeding? The article does not answer enough questions, really.

[fj1200]

I believe Target's policy, from what I'm reading, is recommending and supporting women that need to breastfeed to use a fitting room. But if a mother must, she shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable in public. So they are basing their policy on "comfort level" - and why shouldn't they take the comfort level of other shoppers into account?

Reportedly, no other shoppers.


In a side note not a single non-employee customer ever saw the incident so I’m not sure why the employees were trying to act like I was offending “the public” and that it was their job to step in.

http://www.bestforbabes.org/target-employees-bully-breastfeeding-mom-despite-corporate-policy


For guests in our stores, we support the use of fitting rooms for women who wish to breastfeed their babies, even if others are waiting to use the fitting rooms. In addition, guests who choose to breastfeed discreetly in more public areas of the store are welcome to do so without being made to feel uncomfortable.

They can also do more discreetly in more public areas. I'll bet she was showing less "t" than many of the lingerie shots hanging throughout the store.

[fj1200]

Case history?

They're not a protected class so like I said, they won't be sued here.


Sure , people sue for all sorts of reasons all the time. It sure doesn't mean the company has violated anyone's rights if they ignore their own policy.

And as Jim is saying. What about the comfort level of customers who don't wish to see that sort of thing in public? You're suggesting that since they a big portion of their customers are mothers their comfort level should come first, but I would suggest that the number of mothers who feel comfortable breast feeding right in public is very small even compared to the group of mothers who would not do so, not even taking into account the customers who are NOT mothers .

I don't care, Target will make that determination but as reported, no other shoppers and the employees made the woman feel uncomfortable not in compliance with their policy. Your comparison of one group of mothers vs. another is also incorrect; it's those who support, which is more than just breastfeeding mothers, vs. those who are uncomfortable and would complain.


Yeah like we were talking about in a thread the other day. If you're talking about a employee/employer contract or return policies things like that, then yes those are implied contracts. But there is no implied contract stating that a customer can breast feed in plain view.

Thank you, ignoring policy gets you sued but like I said, I'm sure not here.

[fj1200]

The article does not answer enough questions, really.

Here, apparently, is the original post:

I am a mom of 4 who has been harassed and humiliated by Target employees for nursing by infant in their store. On Thursday, November 29th around 7-8pm, I was Christmas shopping with a basket full of items when my infant woke up hungry, so I found a remote area of the store in the ladies clothing department close to the fitting rooms and sat Indian style on the floor next to my basket and a display of jeans and nursed my hungry baby with a blanket completely covering him. Briefly I will say that 2 female employees came and verbally asked me to move. The 2nd one told me that Target employees had been told/trained to interrupt nursing and to redirect mothers to the fitting rooms. Even after I informed the 2nd employee of my legal right to nurse in public she still suggested me moving closer to the jean display, turning to face another direction, and also turn my basket a certain way which would have put me practically underneath the jean display and totally barricaded me in. Employee #2 even hinted in a threatening way “you can get a ticket and be reported for indecent exposure” when nothing was being exposed and there was more boob showing from low cut shirts several shoppers were wearing that night. This does not include the other 3-4 employees besides the 2 verbal ones who were all watching and making a spectacle of my nursing by standing around pretending to do something and giving me mean looks and shaking their heads no back and forth. In a side note not a single non-employee customer ever saw the incident so I’m not sure why the employees were trying to act like I was offending “the public” and that it was their job to step in.
After I left the store I decided to call the Target corporate office during normal business hours the following day on November 30th, and speak to a guest relations person to notify them of the situation and to suggest that they educate their employees as to the legal right I have to nurse in public. The phone call however took a turn for the worse. The lady (I wish I would have gotten her name) told me that she and Target were aware of our legal rights as nursing mothers, but that Target has different policies because they are a family friendly public place. I can’t think of a more family friendly act than breastfeeding and providing the irrefutably proven healthiest diet to my baby. She continued to inform me repeatedly that Target’s policies were different than the law and even went as far to say several times that just because it is a woman’s right to nurse in public even without a nursing cover like I was using doesn’t mean women should walk around ”flaunting it” and was extremely rude. I also talked to the supervisor of this rude lady and that didn’t get anywhere either.
It saddens me that mothers are being treated this way as if breastfeeding is vile and offensive. If this would have happened to me with the first child I nursed I would have considered giving up on nursing due to embarrassment and that is what concerns me the most. I know that breastmilk is best and that nursing is hard work and a selfless act that mothers choose to do for their babies, and I would hate for this to happen to someone else causing them to give up on nursing. Please help me support the best nutrition for babies and to make a stand in support of nursing in public so this doesn’t happen again.

http://www.bestforbabes.org/target-employees-bully-breastfeeding-mom-despite-corporate-policy

It also appears that the statement from Target is from 2006 according to the above link.

[DragonStryk72]

Here, apparently, is the original post:

http://www.bestforbabes.org/target-employees-bully-breastfeeding-mom-despite-corporate-policy

It also appears that the statement from Target is from 2006 according to the above link.

I know one poster said that if even ONE person complained, and I have this thought: If we ran this site by that theory, what would it look like? If every time that gabs, or PB or Palin Rider, or hell, JWK complained, Jim just changed the policy or forced people to retract opinions and such? What about the whole debacle over the word nigger, or another word that was banned? Certainly multiple people complained, but Jim & Co. stuck to their guns, and rightly so. Changing your policy every time some dipshit takes issue makes policy completely worthless.

People complain endlessly, and we are all, men and women alike, gossips. We want to tell others of our opinions, exploits and such. Another poster asked why she would post it on facebook, and to that I respond: People post everything on facebook. It's like stepping on someone's nuts for the act of posting an opinion on here. The whole point of facebook is as a social network, and that means they want you to talk about stuff on there, and I have seen far more idiotic topics get discussed on there.

[ConHog]

Here, apparently, is the original post:

http://www.bestforbabes.org/target-employees-bully-breastfeeding-mom-despite-corporate-policy

It also appears that the statement from Target is from 2006 according to the above link.

Thank you for posting this FJ as it shows just how fucking stupid this bitch is.


Let's discuss this one statement shall we?

After I left the store I decided to call the Target corporate office during normal business hours the following day on November 30th, and speak to a guest relations person to notify them of the situation and to suggest that they educate their employees as to the legal right I have to nurse in public.

First of all, she doesn't have a RIGHT. What she does have is current law on her side. That is NOT the same thing as a right which no law can change, since we all here must agree that a community could make breast feeding in public illegal andthat would be the end of that.

Second of all, does the ignorant fuck really think that Target is a public place? It is not, it is in fact private property and just as you have a right to kick guests off your property if they irk you, so to does Target.

Seriously , once again it boils down to what I have been saying. People are selfish and only care about themselves, and on top of that stupid and don't even know what the fuck they are bitching about.

[ConHog]

I know one poster said that if even ONE person complained, and I have this thought: If we ran this site by that theory, what would it look like? If every time that gabs, or PB or Palin Rider, or hell, JWK complained, Jim just changed the policy or forced people to retract opinions and such? What about the whole debacle over the word nigger, or another word that was banned? Certainly multiple people complained, but Jim & Co. stuck to their guns, and rightly so. Changing your policy every time some dipshit takes issue makes policy completely worthless.

People complain endlessly, and we are all, men and women alike, gossips. We want to tell others of our opinions, exploits and such. Another poster asked why she would post it on facebook, and to that I respond: People post everything on facebook. It's like stepping on someone's nuts for the act of posting an opinion on here. The whole point of facebook is as a social network, and that means they want you to talk about stuff on there, and I have seen far more idiotic topics get discussed on there.

I don't know why anyone cares what she posted on FB and she certainly did it to put Target in a bad light, which is why I don't care what she says there. It's only half the story.

[jimnyc]

Reportedly, no other shoppers.

http://www.bestforbabes.org/target-employees-bully-breastfeeding-mom-despite-corporate-policy

They can also do more discreetly in more public areas. I'll bet she was showing less "t" than many of the lingerie shots hanging throughout the store.

Sure, and the "reportedly" comes from the woman complaining. I'm confident any regular shoppers who may have felt uncomfortable didn't run to the press or home to publicize things on facebook. Moving a few feet would have made this problem go away, and she would have likely been more comfortable sitting upright than indian style on the floor.

[jimnyc]

I know one poster said that if even ONE person complained, and I have this thought: If we ran this site by that theory, what would it look like? If every time that gabs, or PB or Palin Rider, or hell, JWK complained, Jim just changed the policy or forced people to retract opinions and such? What about the whole debacle over the word nigger, or another word that was banned? Certainly multiple people complained, but Jim & Co. stuck to their guns, and rightly so. Changing your policy every time some dipshit takes issue makes policy completely worthless.

People complain endlessly, and we are all, men and women alike, gossips. We want to tell others of our opinions, exploits and such. Another poster asked why she would post it on facebook, and to that I respond: People post everything on facebook. It's like stepping on someone's nuts for the act of posting an opinion on here. The whole point of facebook is as a social network, and that means they want you to talk about stuff on there, and I have seen far more idiotic topics get discussed on there.

We've had MULTIPLE times on this site where ONE poster complained about mild nudity, or scantily clad women - and they were almost always removed, at our discretion, to make the person offended more comfortable at our site.

[shattered]

Between 7:00 and 8:0pm less than a month before Christmas, and Target was empty, and there were no customers anywhere around?

Bullshit.

She was probably in everyones way, and someone likely complained, at which point someone asked her to move to a more logical place, and she started threatening, and spouting off about her rights.

[Shadow]

Perhaps it is just me, but I don't understand why a mom would want to do something as personal as nursing in public. Do they think that no one will notice?
I have several friends who have had kids and none of them ever felt the need to nurse in a public place.

You would be suprised. I think they just do it because they can...and to push the envelope. One time while eating at a Disneyland restaurant ( in the same building as pirates of the carribean). My then 4 year old, pointed out a woman sitting with her (rather huge) bare breast propped up on the table breast feeding. No one said a word to her...and she was not bothered one bit that people were gawking at her the entire time either.

[shattered]

Oh, and while I'm picking apart her bullshit story.. She's carrying a BASKET AND a baby (presumably in a seat) while Christmas shopping? Wthout a cart, and without a diaper bag? Seriously? Who has the coordination to juggle a basket, a baby, a diaper bag, and breast feed, and NOT draw massive attention to themselves?

[fj1200]

Thank you for posting this FJ as it shows just how fucking stupid this bitch is.


Let's discuss this one statement shall we?

After I left the store I decided to call the Target corporate office during normal business hours the following day on November 30th, and speak to a guest relations person to notify them of the situation and to suggest that they educate their employees as to the legal right I have to nurse in public.

First of all, she doesn't have a RIGHT. What she does have is current law on her side. That is NOT the same thing as a right which no law can change, since we all here must agree that a community could make breast feeding in public illegal andthat would be the end of that.

Second of all, does the ignorant fuck really think that Target is a public place? It is not, it is in fact private property and just as you have a right to kick guests off your property if they irk you, so to does Target.

Seriously , once again it boils down to what I have been saying. People are selfish and only care about themselves, and on top of that stupid and don't even know what the fuck they are bitching about.

She certainly has plenty of issues where she is incorrect on her "rights" but the "ignorant F*" :rolleyes: knows that Target is in violation of their policy and how to motivate others who care about their issue. Also a change in law would not do anything to resolve the issue because Target is still in control of what they allow on their premises.


I'm confident any regular shoppers...


She was probably...

Does anyone else need to create assumptions to bolster their position?

[DragonStryk72]

Between 7:00 and 8:0pm less than a month before Christmas, and Target was empty, and there were no customers anywhere around?

Bullshit.

She was probably in everyones way, and someone likely complained, at which point someone asked her to move to a more logical place, and she started threatening, and spouting off about her rights.

At 7 or 8 pm on a weekday in a particular section of the store at that particular moment? Sure, especially when she specifically states she went out of the way, sat down making herself lower than the level of the displays? Not bullshit.

So basically, you can't prove anything she says is wrong, so it's bullshit because it really hurts your argument?

[DragonStryk72]

We've had MULTIPLE times on this site where ONE poster complained about mild nudity, or scantily clad women - and they were almost always removed, at our discretion, to make the person offended more comfortable at our site.

Really, how all the cases of slightly partial nudity on this site, Jim? She had a blanket covering her, so there was no breast out, meaning not nudity.

[shattered]

At 7 or 8 pm on a weekday in a particular section of the store at that particular moment? Sure, especially when she specifically states she went out of the way, sat down making herself lower than the level of the displays? Not bullshit.

So basically, you can't prove anything she says is wrong, so it's bullshit because it really hurts your argument?

No, it really doesn't.

You really expect people to believe she's just carrying a baby wrapped in a blanket, and a basket of Christmas gifts and NOTHING else? No purse? No coat? No diaper bag?

Please..

Don't act so stupid.

More likely, she had an aisle blocked, as well as a display or two, and people complained because they couldn't freely move through the store. I don't know where the hell you live, but a month before Christmas, stores like that are packed to the fucking gills with people AND product.

Oh, and since she was IN the clothing department anyway, there are fitting rooms RIGHT THERE. In some stores, there are even benches. Theres ALSO a hallway with benches leading to the restrooms right in front of the store. There are even Starbucks with tables/'chairs in a TON of Targets. The woman had options. She chose to be an inconsiderate twat.

[Noir]

And ANYTHING you post on there, no matter what you call it, can much too easily go public. If it's on the internet, it can be found. She WANTED to make a big deal out of something that wasn't that big of a deal.

Have you ever received (in your opinion) bad customer service from anywhere, maybe a shop, or a phone company, or a car dealership, anything, and posted about it online, ever?

[Abbey Marie]

No, one point is that it would be the policy of the store and the second point is how stupid a comparison you are making.



The peril in this case is that they are alienating an entire group of people who spend a lot of money on baby stuff and all of it to no productive end because they don't know their own store's policy. I laugh at your FACT, I'm guessing the local store is pretty well bound by corporate policy.



So unless you can show that she was militantly breast feeding, it's really not of issue is it?

Or you can show she wasn't. Btw, one of us was there; the other wasn't.

[jimnyc]

Does anyone else need to create assumptions to bolster their position?

Most of us simply don't take the word of the complainer as gospel. We haven't heard the side of the employees or who may have complained. Nor does it matter anyway, as they politely offered her an alternative a few feet away rather then being on the floor, but she CHOSE to make a big deal instead. 2 sides to every story and we only heard one of them.

[jimnyc]

Really, how all the cases of slightly partial nudity on this site, Jim? She had a blanket covering her, so there was no breast out, meaning not nudity.

As fj1200 pointed out - assumptions. Were you there to see what she did/didn't expose while getting ready or while she was breastfeeding?

[jimnyc]

Have you ever received (in your opinion) bad customer service from anywhere, maybe a shop, or a phone company, or a car dealership, anything, and posted about it online, ever?

Not in a manner where I identify myself to potentially millions of people. I've done so, in a private and anonymous manner.

[Abbey Marie]

What peril can they possibly get into if they "change" their own policy and ask a woman to use the facilities to breastfeed?

If there is one thing that has screwed up this country's economy and entrepreneurial spirit, it is the fear of being in "peril" of lawsuits at every turn. It's time people stood up for themselves and stop living in fear. If enough businesses did so, it would lose it's punch.

[ConHog]

She certainly has plenty of issues where she is incorrect on her "rights" but the "ignorant F*" :rolleyes: knows that Target is in violation of their policy and how to motivate others who care about their issue. Also a change in law would not do anything to resolve the issue because Target is still in control of what they allow on their premises.





Does anyone else need to create assumptions to bolster their position?

Well, I am glad to see you acknowledge that she doesn't know her rights.


But you still seem to want to argue that Target can't violate their policy at any time. For any reason. It's their policy, not law, and not a legal obligation. Do you argue that Target could not reverse the policy or do away with the policy altogether? Do you acknowledge that perhaps Target instructs their employees that it is okay as long as in the employee's judgements it isn't impeding other customers?

[ConHog]

If there is one thing that has screwed up this country's economy and entrepreneurial spirit, it is the fear of being in "peril" of lawsuits at every turn. It's time people stood up for themselves and stop living in fear. If enough businesses did so, it would lose it's punch.


The problem is people like this lady and the cupcake lady are loud and adamant that their "rights" are more important than anything else up to and including the rights of others. Personally I believe that attempting to educate these people is a last cause..

[jimnyc]

If there is one thing that has screwed up this country's economy and entrepreneurial spirit, it is the fear of being in "peril" of lawsuits at every turn. It's time people stood up for themselves and stop living in fear. If enough businesses did so, it would lose it's punch.

Too true. But any lawsuit out of this would be an exercise in futility. She had a suitable place right in the woman's department to go to, but chose to sit on the floor instead. She has no case in a million years, but even if she did, she had an opportunity to mitigate the circumstances - but by golly she knows "her rights" and she'll do as she pleases in public - even though she was on private property.

[Abbey Marie]

Too true. But any lawsuit out of this would be an exercise in futility. She had a suitable place right in the woman's department to go to, but chose to sit on the floor instead. She has no case in a million years, but even if she did, she had an opportunity to mitigate the circumstances - but by golly she knows "her rights" and she'll do as she pleases in public - even though she was on private property.

I agree. It's the fear of one, founded or not, that is stultifying.

I wanted to also point out that, even if it is true that the woman didn't see any other customers from her spot on the floor, that doesn't mean customers didn't see her. In fact, it is quite reasonable to think that people saw her, and made a beeline to another aisle to avoid her. One of those beelines could certainly have been to complain to an employee.

And with all her concern for the health of her child, I certainly wouldn't sit on a filthy department store floor to feed my baby.

[jimnyc]

I agree. It's the fear of one, founded or not, that is stultifying.

I wanted to also point out that, even if it is true that the woman didn't see any other customers from her spot on the floor, that doesn't mean customers didn't see her. In fact, it is quite reasonable to think that people saw her, and made a beeline to another aisle to avoid her. One of those beelines could certainly have been to complain to an employee.

And with all her concern for the health of her child, I certainly wouldn't sit on a filthy department store floor to feed my baby.

That's my line of thought. You have a private place, that's certainly cleaner than sitting on a floor, merely feet from where you are protesting. It doesn't make sense to me. And I agree with your other point, if I were walking into a particular department, and I saw a woman on the ground down a ways and she is breastfeeding, I will certainly go out of my way to avoid her. Partly because I don't want to see it, and partly to give her a little bit of privacy. But shoppers shouldn't have to make that choice while they are browsing the aisles.

[ConHog]

I agree. It's the fear of one, founded or not, that is stultifying.

I wanted to also point out that, even if it is true that the woman didn't see any other customers from her spot on the floor, that doesn't mean customers didn't see her. In fact, it is quite reasonable to think that people saw her, and made a beeline to another aisle to avoid her. One of those beelines could certainly have been to complain to an employee.

And with all her concern for the health of her child, I certainly wouldn't sit on a filthy department store floor to feed my baby.

Egad woman, are you suggesting this ladies motives were nt as altruistic as she would like us to believe?

[Abbey Marie]

Egad woman, are you suggesting this ladies motives were nt as altruistic as she would like us to believe?

Who, me? Never! cough: agenda :cough

[Nukeman]

I tell ya.. I was at a family friendly place called "Science Central" and in the middle of a crowded room waiting for the balloons to drop in the countdown to noon celebration for new years, a woman sits on the floor IN THE MIDDLE of a bunch of screaming kids and adults, whips her breast out latches little junior on without a care in the world as to who was looking. She didn't cover anything up, she didn't try to be modest or anything she literally hiked her bra-less shirt up and let it flop out, than fumbled around with the little one to get him to latch on... That is NOT the way to do that in public... IMHO

Now my wife fed ALL 4 of our children "discreetly" and modestly. She always used a blanket to cover her and the baby. Hell we were on a plane once and the guy sitting next to us didn't even realize we had a little one with, us let alone my wife feeding him until we were getting off the plane.

The mall where we live has a "family" restroom with a nursing station that has rocking chairs and benches. If a store makes space available for the nursing than they should be used if at all possible, if not than discretion should be used with a healthy dose of modesty... IMHO

[Shadow]

I tell ya.. I was at a family friendly place called "Science Central" and in the middle of a crowded room waiting for the balloons to drop in the countdown to noon celebration for new years, a woman sits on the floor IN THE MIDDLE of a bunch of screaming kids and adults, whips her breast out latches little junior on without a care in the world as to who was looking. She didn't cover anything up, she didn't try to be modest or anything she literally hiked her bra-less shirt up and let it flop out, than fumbled around with the little one to get him to latch on... That is NOT the way to do that in public... IMHO

Now my wife fed ALL 4 of our children "discreetly" and modestly. She always used a blanket to cover her and the baby. Hell we were on a plane once and the guy sitting next to us didn't even realize we had a little one with, us let alone my wife feeding him until we were getting off the plane.

The mall where we live has a "family" restroom with a nursing station that has rocking chairs and benches. If a store makes space available for the nursing than they should be used if at all possible, if not than discretion should be used with a healthy dose of modesty... IMHO

I totally agree with you and I have seen the women who blatantly have no problem letting it all hang out in public also (not appropriate IMO). If you have ever been in the Target dressing rooms, you know that they have "family" rooms...for parents who have children they are fitting (along with the smaller rooms built for one person). They have a lot of space to move around in, and a place to sit. There is no reason why using one to breast feed should be a problem for any woman.

[Kathianne]

I totally agree with you and I have seen the women who blatantly have no problem letting it all hang out in public also (not appropriate IMO). If you have ever been in the Target dressing rooms, you know that they have "family" rooms...for parents who have children they are fitting (along with the smaller rooms built for one person). They have a lot of space to move around in, and a place to sit. There is no reason why using one to breast feed should be a problem for any woman.

While I'm very pro-nursing, I too agree. I see no reason for a nursing mom, unless with other kids in tow needs the 'big' dressing room. I think that Target will allow the mom to nurse in the dressing room a plus. Why would anyone, like Abbey said, take to the floor when a better alternative is available? Mom could sit on bench and relax, one of the main bonuses imo about nursing. If instead they were saying, 'sit in a filthy bathroom toilet,' I'd agree with the mom, the floor in clothing would probably be better.

I will say though, that when my kids were babes, I went to stores that catered to moms via the rest rooms. The 'big name stores', such as at that time, Marshall Field's, Carson's, Lord & Taylor all had areas with sofas, changing tables, separate from toilet areas. Macy's still does, along with most major retailers.

A dressing room is fine though, probably better than the rest room at Target.

[LuvRPgrl]

Egad woman, are you suggesting this ladies motives were nt as altruistic as she would like us to believe?

Is your public sucking on the nipple of DP based on altruism?:laugh:

[Shadow]

While I'm very pro-nursing, I too agree. I see no reason for a nursing mom, unless with other kids in tow needs the 'big' dressing room. I think that Target will allow the mom to nurse in the dressing room a plus. Why would anyone, like Abbey said, take to the floor when a better alternative is available? Mom could sit on bench and relax, one of the main bonuses imo about nursing. If instead they were saying, 'sit in a filthy bathroom toilet,' I'd agree with the mom, the floor in clothing would probably be better.

I will say though, that when my kids were babes, I went to stores that catered to moms via the rest rooms. The 'big name stores', such as at that time, Marshall Field's, Carson's, Lord & Taylor all had areas with sofas, changing tables, separate from toilet areas. Macy's still does, along with most major retailers.

A dressing room is fine though, probably better than the rest room at Target.

I don't go to the mall very often but I do know that most department stores have fairly large dressing rooms with chairs or benches in them. In some places they have really nice rest areas in the bathrooms too with couches and chairs (like you said). Dillards,Macy's both do...I remember Mervyn's having one too when they were still in business. I definitely think there are better alternatives then in the middle of the floor where you are underfoot. I realize some women are perfectly comfortable whipping out their breasts in public...I wouldn't be one of them though. Sure as anything that would be the one time you would run into someone from work or something. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Is your public sucking on the nipple of DP based on altruism?:laugh:

Stop derailing or you will be thread banned.

[fj1200]

Or you can show she wasn't. Btw, one of us was there; the other wasn't.

You were at the Target store? Please, fill in the details.

[fj1200]

Most of us simply don't take the word of the complainer as gospel. We haven't heard the side of the employees or who may have complained. Nor does it matter anyway, as they politely offered her an alternative a few feet away rather then being on the floor, but she CHOSE to make a big deal instead. 2 sides to every story and we only heard one of them.

And then fill in the rest with assumptions? But yes, it doesn't matter, she was acting in a manner in compliance with Target policy; the big deal was made by employees.

How did she violate Target policy?


If there is one thing that has screwed up this country's economy and entrepreneurial spirit, it is the fear of being in "peril" of lawsuits at every turn. It's time people stood up for themselves and stop living in fear. If enough businesses did so, it would lose it's punch.

Funny, that's exactly what she was doing. How did she violate Target policy?


Well, I am glad to see you acknowledge that she doesn't know her rights.

Please point out where I claimed she was a constitutional scholar. But she does though, she knows Target policy which is the basis for her "right."


But you still seem to want to argue that Target can't violate their policy at any time. For any reason. It's their policy, not law, and not a legal obligation. Do you argue that Target could not reverse the policy or do away with the policy altogether? Do you acknowledge that perhaps Target instructs their employees that it is okay as long as in the employee's judgements it isn't impeding other customers?

Why do you ask silly questions? Of course they can change their policy but Target corporate sets policies for a reason and it's exactly so some bumpkin working in the women's clothing aisle can't change it per their whim.

How did she violate Target policy?

[jimnyc]

And then fill in the rest with assumptions? But yes, it doesn't matter, she was acting in a manner in compliance with Target policy; the big deal was made by employees.

How did she violate Target policy?

She doesn't need to violate policy for employees to ask her to utilize a more private place. Asking her to do so, instead of plopping on the floor in the middle of the clothing department, is not a big deal. Target reserves the right to change/ignore or do whatever they want with their policy at anytime they please. The only recourse for shoppers is to complain, which she did, or shop elsewhere. It's that simple.

[jimnyc]

Btw, since some seem to be dwelling on "policy". Their policy is apparently to have breastfeeding women go to the allotted fitting rooms BUT if someone must do so in public, they should be comfortable. It sounds to me like their primary goal is to make everyone happy and have women utilize a more private location. In other words, they want to do their best to make EVERYONE comfortable. Since we don't know the specifics of what surrounding customers saw and didn't see, we only have what the complaint states, which is only one side. But even the complaint states that she was asked to move to the fitting rooms, which was in the very area she was already in - and that hardly qualifies as "making a big deal" out of it.

[Abbey Marie]

You were at the Target store? Please, fill in the details.

You commented on the situation that happened at my parent's home. Your eagerness to try to make me wrong has led you to overlook that, I guess.

[Abbey Marie]

Btw, since some seem to be dwelling on "policy". Their policy is apparently to have breastfeeding women go to the allotted fitting rooms BUT if someone must do so in public, they should be comfortable. It sounds to me like their primary goal is to make everyone happy and have women utilize a more private location. In other words, they want to do their best to make EVERYONE comfortable. Since we don't know the specifics of what surrounding customers saw and didn't see, we only have what the complaint states, which is only one side. But even the complaint states that she was asked to move to the fitting rooms, which was in the very area she was already in - and that hardly qualifies as "making a big deal" out of it.

Unless you have an agenda...

[jimnyc]

Unless you have an agenda...

Everything we say is invalid because we weren't there, but everything this woman says is the absolute truth. :thumb:

[ConHog]

And then fill in the rest with assumptions? But yes, it doesn't matter, she was acting in a manner in compliance with Target policy; the big deal was made by employees.

How did she violate Target policy?



Funny, that's exactly what she was doing. How did she violate Target policy?



Please point out where I claimed she was a constitutional scholar. But she does though, she knows Target policy which is the basis for her "right."


you seem to be implying that a person has a right to have a company stand by their written policies. There is no such right. This woman had no right to Target upholding their policy.




Why do you ask silly questions? Of course they can change their policy but Target corporate sets policies for a reason and it's exactly so some bumpkin working in the women's clothing aisle can't change it per their whim.

How odd that you comment on me calling the woman names, but have no problem calling the employee names. Or is only my use of the word fuck that you object to? Because Jim's policy seems to be to allow the use of the word fuck and so under YOUR theory I haven't broken any policy , so why would you object to my use of the word fuck?



How did she violate Target policy?

Point is, and has been that as a private company Target doesn't have to adhere to their policy and in fact can ask a customer to leave for NO reason if they wish. My question to you is how was this woman inconvenienced at all?

[Jess]

Sometimes I have a painful need to shit to. I still don't squat in the middle of Target and do my business.

Defecation and breastfeeding are two completely different things as you well know.

Breastfeeding is seeing to the health and well-being of an innocent child who cannot do that for themselves.

Now behave before I have to get medieval on you, CH. 2879

[ConHog]

Defecation and breastfeeding are two completely different things as you well know.

Breastfeeding is seeing to the health and well-being of an innocent child who cannot do that for themselves.

Now behave before I have to get medieval on you, CH. 2879

They are the same thing in the context of THIS discussion Jess. Are you telling me that anyone believes that child would have died in the 60 seconds it would have taken that woman to walk to a dressing room? If the child is that fragile, I suggest they should be in a hospital, or at the very least not be taken out in public.

[Jess]

They are the same thing in the context of THIS discussion Jess. Are you telling me that anyone believes that child would have died in the 60 seconds it would have taken that woman to walk to a dressing room? If the child is that fragile, I suggest they should be in a hospital, or at the very least not be taken out in public.

I don't disagree that she could/should have handled it differently. But likening breastfeeding to defecation is not really appropriate either.



And when you have a child that needs to be fed and is screaming, getting itself more upset and/or disrupting the store around you, 60 seconds is an eternity. Or when the ginormous hoo-hoos that y'all are so fond of feel as though they're ready to explode, sometimes one takes drastic measures.

[ConHog]

I don't disagree that she could/should have handled it differently. But likening breastfeeding to defecation is not really appropriate either.



And when you have a child that needs to be fed and is screaming, getting itself more upset and/or disrupting the store around you, 60 seconds is an eternity. Or when the ginormous hoo-hoos that y'all are so fond of feel as though they're ready to explode, sometimes one takes drastic measures.

Sorry, I don't buy that.

Oh, and I don't care for ginormous hoo-hoos either.

[LuvRPgrl]

Defecation and breastfeeding are two completely different things as you well know.

Breastfeeding is seeing to the health and well-being of an innocent child who cannot do that for themselves.

Now behave before I have to get medieval on you, CH. 2879

ahh yea, how brain dead does a person need to be to not see that breastfeeding is not a health hazard to others, nor do you leave a mess when you are done.

[Jess]

Sorry, I don't buy that.

Oh, and I don't care for ginormous hoo-hoos either.

Well, in all honesty, you don't have to buy it. You will never be a mother needing to nurse her child. I've been there, done that and can speak with authority on the subject.

As to all the hubbub about this specific woman and her experience? From what I've read, she should and could have handled it differently. She may very well just be seeking attention. The point is, none of us were there, none of us will ever know exactly what went on, so it's really somewhat ridiculous to have arguments about it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, in all honesty, you don't have to buy it. You will never be a mother needing to nurse her child. I've been there, done that and can speak with authority on the subject.

As to all the hubbub about this specific woman and her experience? From what I've read, she should and could have handled it differently. She may very well just be seeking attention. The point is, none of us were there, none of us will ever know exactly what went on, so it's really somewhat ridiculous to have arguments about it.

you never know, he/she could have a sex transplant.:laugh:
I mean, a true know it all has to have many varied experiences....

[Gunny]

Is your public sucking on the nipple of DP based on altruism?:laugh:


ahh yea, how brain dead does a person need to be to not see that breastfeeding is not a health hazard to others, nor do you leave a mess when you are done.


you never know, he/she could have a sex transplant.:laugh:
I mean, a true know it all has to have many varied experiences....

I believe Jim told you to confine this BS to the Steel Cage. I suggest you do so. I'm about tired of all this personal attack for no reason cluttering half the board.

[ConHog]

Well, in all honesty, you don't have to buy it. You will never be a mother needing to nurse her child. I've been there, done that and can speak with authority on the subject.

As to all the hubbub about this specific woman and her experience? From what I've read, she should and could have handled it differently. She may very well just be seeking attention. The point is, none of us were there, none of us will ever know exactly what went on, so it's really somewhat ridiculous to have arguments about it.

You're right, I can't speak with the same authority that a woman who has been through it has, BUT I have been with 2 women that went through it and neither of them EVER resorted to whipping it out in public for any reason. Add to the fact that millions of women likewise don't nurse in public and I think we can see that there are other options. So saying this woman did what she had to do is not right.

[Jess]

You're right, I can't speak with the same authority that a woman who has been through it has, BUT I have been with 2 women that went through it and neither of them EVER resorted to whipping it out in public for any reason. Add to the fact that millions of women likewise don't nurse in public and I think we can see that there are other options. So saying this woman did what she had to do is not right.

I have stated that I don't believe it was her "right", that all of this is much ado over nothing and that it does not have to be done this way.

However, in the interest of reality and playing devil's advocate, gave some instances that make it a much more reasonable scenario.

[DragonStryk72]

As fj1200 pointed out - assumptions. Were you there to see what she did/didn't expose while getting ready or while she was breastfeeding?

Were you? According to that, we shouldn't debate anything at all on this site aside from personal experience. But again, we have at least some direct backing from the story as posted. You could try and post something that counters it, or proves she's lying, but that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.

[jimnyc]

Were you? According to that, we shouldn't debate anything at all on this site aside from personal experience. But again, we have at least some direct backing from the story as posted. You could try and post something that counters it, or proves she's lying, but that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.

Unless the workers tell their side of events, or another patron that possibly saw what happened comes forth whining themselves, we only have a one sided story to go on. I wouldn't call an offended shoppers version of events to be "backing". I find it hard to believe that at this time of year she could find ANYWHERE to not be noticed, other than in a room with a door. And I don't need "backing" to have that opinion. They obviously saw her, whether a worker or a patron, and the worker might have been the one who was offended. Their first "support" is to have customers utilize the fitting rooms.

[ConHog]

Unless the workers tell their side of events, or another patron that possibly saw what happened comes forth whining themselves, we only have a one sided story to go on. I wouldn't call an offended shoppers version of events to be "backing". I find it hard to believe that at this time of year she could find ANYWHERE to not be noticed, other than in a room with a door. And I don't need "backing" to have that opinion. They obviously saw her, whether a worker or a patron, and the worker might have been the one who was offended. Their first "support" is to have customers utilize the fitting rooms.


For shame, are you suggesting that when people make complaints about other people they only tell a version of events that puts them in a good light while putting the other party in the worst light possible?

[DragonStryk72]

Unless the workers tell their side of events, or another patron that possibly saw what happened comes forth whining themselves, we only have a one sided story to go on. I wouldn't call an offended shoppers version of events to be "backing". I find it hard to believe that at this time of year she could find ANYWHERE to not be noticed, other than in a room with a door. And I don't need "backing" to have that opinion. They obviously saw her, whether a worker or a patron, and the worker might have been the one who was offended. Their first "support" is to have customers utilize the fitting rooms.

Really? Because no store employees ever foul their own rules, or use them incorrectly, or purposely misquote them. That has never once happened. The target policy has already been posted on here for further proof that she wasn't in the wrong. She wasn't walking down the middle of the aisle screaming, "LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME AS I BREASTFEED MY CHILD!". She used a blanket, sat down in a way that made sure most people couldn't have seen her, and followed the Target policy on the matter.

And we're back to the one person being offended, Jim. I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid argument, because that's just opening the floodgates. Target would never get anything done in a day by changing course every time even one person has an issue with it.

[jimnyc]

Really? Because no store employees ever foul their own rules, or use them incorrectly, or purposely misquote them. That has never once happened. The target policy has already been posted on here for further proof that she wasn't in the wrong. She wasn't walking down the middle of the aisle screaming, "LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME AS I BREASTFEED MY CHILD!". She used a blanket, sat down in a way that made sure most people couldn't have seen her, and followed the Target policy on the matter.

And we're back to the one person being offended, Jim. I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid argument, because that's just opening the floodgates. Target would never get anything done in a day by changing course every time even one person has an issue with it.

Target's official policy is to first direct women to use the fitting rooms to breastfeed.

Whether one person or 10, if someone is offended it is not out of line to politely ask her to move a few steps to a fitting room. And I highly doubt Target will lose much time addressing this - how many women do you think who shop at Target just plop down in the clothing department and sit indian style to breastfeed? I don't see this happening often enough for Target to be worried about it tying up their employees. Women breastfeeding while shopping in Target isn't likely to happen very often at all I imagine.

[shattered]

Sorry, I don't buy that.

Oh, and I don't care for ginormous hoo-hoos either.

Regardless of what you do, or do not "buy", feeding a baby is a necessity - when it's hungry - whether in public, or not. Not when it's convenient for you. This woman breast feeding in public is NOT wrong. The way she handled it when asked to move to a more suitable location IS/WAS wrong. That's it.

[ConHog]

Regardless of what you do, or do not "buy", feeding a baby is a necessity - when it's hungry - whether in public, or not. Not when it's convenient for you. This woman breast feeding in public is NOT wrong. The way she handled it when asked to move to a more suitable location IS/WAS wrong. That's it.

And that's all I said was wrong, so why even state otherwise?

[jimnyc]

Regardless of what you do, or do not "buy", feeding a baby is a necessity - when it's hungry - whether in public, or not. Not when it's convenient for you. This woman breast feeding in public is NOT wrong. The way she handled it when asked to move to a more suitable location IS/WAS wrong. That's it.

I can agree with this, with one little addition. So long as done discreetly, I have no issue with a woman breastfeeding in public, and don't think it's wrong either. But in this instance, it was on private property, so their rules trump all. But I can agree with your sentiment that it's not wrong to do so when necessary, so long as it's done discreetly.

[fj1200]

She doesn't need to violate policy for employees to ask her to utilize a more private place. Asking her to do so, instead of plopping on the floor in the middle of the clothing department, is not a big deal. Target reserves the right to change/ignore or do whatever they want with their policy at anytime they please. The only recourse for shoppers is to complain, which she did, or shop elsewhere. It's that simple.

Target does, minions don't.


You commented on the situation that happened at my parent's home. Your eagerness to try to make me wrong has led you to overlook that, I guess.

I don't believe I did.

EDIT: Checked it. No I didn't, you were trying to assign militant breastfeeding to the woman in question where no one else had brought it up.


Everything we say is invalid because we weren't there, but everything this woman says is the absolute truth. :thumb:

Do you have any more to add other than assumptions?

[fj1200]

you seem to be implying that a person has a right to have a company stand by their written policies. There is no such right. This woman had no right to Target upholding their policy.

Will you quit with this "rights" BS, it's not even the issue. She fully has the expectation that Target will maintain the privilege that they allow her to exercise on their property.


How odd that you comment on me calling the woman names, but have no problem calling the employee names. Or is only my use of the word fuck that you object to? Because Jim's policy seems to be to allow the use of the word fuck and so under YOUR theory I haven't broken any policy , so why would you object to my use of the word fuck?

You're blithering on completely disrespectfully about the woman calling her every name in the book just because she didn't lie down to the first bit of authority that came along and attempted to coerce her into altering her behavior that was completely allowed on those premises in the first place. Bumpkin is name calling? :laugh:

She may be a lying, blithering fool but based on what I've read, one-sided that it is, she did nothing other than violate one of your social mores. That's not an "ignorant F" in my book.


Point is, and has been that as a private company Target doesn't have to adhere to their policy and in fact can ask a customer to leave for NO reason if they wish. My question to you is how was this woman inconvenienced at all?

I'll assume here (we're all doing it to make our argument better right?) that she had already camped out and started the process and having to get up and re-position everything and everyone which was completely unnecessary CONSIDERING THAT SHE WAS FOLLOWING COMPANY POLICY. Please point me to where I said that Target corporate does not have the ability to change their policy whenever they feel like it? Short of that, the minions (are you OK with that one?) that straighten shelves in the local store do not/should not have the ability to alter Target corporate policy based on their personal feelings.

While you're responding to this you could also explain why a doctor has to follow the letter of policy/law/whatever after delivering a child but a Target employee does NOT have to follow policy?

[fj1200]

I can agree with this, with one little addition. So long as done discreetly, I have no issue with a woman breastfeeding in public, and don't think it's wrong either. But in this instance, it was on private property, so their rules trump all. But I can agree with your sentiment that it's not wrong to do so when necessary, so long as it's done discreetly.


For guests in our stores, we support the use of fitting rooms for women who wish to breastfeed their babies, even if others are waiting to use the fitting rooms. In addition, guests who choose to breastfeed discreetly in more public areas of the store are welcome to do so without being made to feel uncomfortable.

"In addition, guests who choose to breastfeed discreetly..." implies that it is the guests choice and not the second option for the mother.


I found a remote area of the store in the ladies clothing department close to the fitting rooms and sat Indian style on the floor next to my basket and a display of jeans and nursed my hungry baby with a blanket completely covering him.


"... a remote area ... with a blanket completely covering him..." implies discretion. Sounds like she has met your two requirements.

[jimnyc]

Target does, minions don't.

Employees are representatives of Target and have the right to work around, or change, or ignore policy when necessary. There is no law that the company must do ANYTHING with their policy, nor law that says anything about their employees. It's all up to Target and their employees. And even more so if it was a manager in the area, which from I read there was, as managers have the right to do what they feel is necessary with the store policy. If you don't like that, tough shit, whine to corporate like this woman did. But just stating that those working there can't change/ignore policy because you say so is wrong.

[jimnyc]

"In addition, guests who choose to breastfeed discreetly..." implies that it is the guests choice and not the second option for the mother.



"... a remote area ... with a blanket completely covering him..." implies discretion. Sounds like she has met your two requirements.

I love how you write "target rules" LOL It's simply a guideline, not "requirements". And AGAIN, they reserve the right to change this, whenever they damn well please, and whiners can choose to shop elsewhere.

And she HASN'T met requirements, as she was asked to move a very short distance into a fitting room. She didn't meet the requirement and chose to bitch instead.

[jimnyc]

Do you have any more to add other than assumptions?

Hey, it's only YOU who is shooting down what everyone states and trumping "store policy" as if it's law. It's YOU all along who ASSUMES that this woman's version of events is 100% the truth. Have at it if you will!! But Target and their employees can STILL ignore/change policy whenever they damn well please and her ONLY recourse is to complain and/or shop elsewhere.

[Abbey Marie]

EDIT: Checked it. No I didn't, you were trying to assign militant breastfeeding to the woman in question where no one else had brought it up.


Wrong.
My post, verbatim:

I had an aunt who was very much the earth mother type, who came to visit at my parent's home while I was still living there. She was breast feeding her baby at the time. While she and we were all seated at the table (including my father, and one of my brothers, me, etc.) She took out her breast, left it completely uncovered, and started nursing. The men all left the room, as they were very uncomfortable.

She was in a home, and all she had to do was excuse herself and go into any other room. But she was making a statement. And to heck with anyone else who didn't want to see a relative's breast.

This is what I mean by being militant about breast-feeding.

and:

she knew the breast-feeding crowd is rather militant on the subject. La Leche, Nursing Mothers, etc.

Nowhere did I say that she was militant. Reading comprehension, baby.
Next.

[ConHog]

I love how you write "target rules" LOL It's simply a guideline, not "requirements". And AGAIN, they reserve the right to change this, whenever they damn well please, and whiners can choose to shop elsewhere.

And she HASN'T met requirements, as she was asked to move a very short distance into a fitting room. She didn't meet the requirement and chose to bitch instead.

That's the impression I'm getting from him to, that he thinks Target is bound by law to provide ANY kind of policy regarding breast feeding.

They are not. Their policy COULD be "we leave it to store managers, since that obviously makes sense that one policy can't cover all situations"

I didn't think FJ was one of those people who confusedly thinks that citizens have a right to anything from private entities. But it sure appears he does.

[LuvRPgrl]

For shame, are you suggesting that when people make complaints about other people they only tell a version of events that puts them in a good light while putting the other party in the worst light possible?

Doesnt mean their version isnt accurate.

[LuvRPgrl]

Really? Because no store employees ever foul their own rules, or use them incorrectly, or purposely misquote them. That has never once happened. The target policy has already been posted on here for further proof that she wasn't in the wrong. She wasn't walking down the middle of the aisle screaming, "LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME AS I BREASTFEED MY CHILD!". She used a blanket, sat down in a way that made sure most people couldn't have seen her, and followed the Target policy on the matter.

And we're back to the one person being offended, Jim. I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid argument, because that's just opening the floodgates. Target would never get anything done in a day by changing course every time even one person has an issue with it.

not to mention, silence from the other party is usually quite revealing.

[LuvRPgrl]

She doesn't need to violate policy for employees to ask her to utilize a more private place. Asking her to do so, instead of plopping on the floor in the middle of the clothing department, is not a big deal. Target reserves the right to change/ignore or do whatever they want with their policy at anytime they please. The only recourse for shoppers is to complain, which she did, or shop elsewhere. It's that simple.

They do sometimes, but not always, and they dont have complete carte blanche. The law will restrict certain actions/rules, for example they cant deny entrance to someone based on their race or relgiion, or they cant charge different prices to different people.
.....And even when they can change policies, many times they will require Target to give the patrons a reasonable opportunity to comply, which isnt always immediately, or even that very day.

If a shopper comes prepared in a way that complies with existing policy, Target cannot make immediate changes that would cause said patron from shopping that particular day under certain circumstances that might create undue burdens upon the shopper.

[LuvRPgrl]

Hey, it's only YOU who is shooting down what everyone states and trumping "store policy" as if it's law. It's YOU all along who ASSUMES that this woman's version of events is 100% the truth. Have at it if you will!! But Target and their employees can STILL ignore/change policy whenever they damn well please and her ONLY recourse is to complain and/or shop elsewhere.

WRONG AND WRONG.
Target cannot make policies or guidelines that conflict with existing laws. For example, they cant require everyone to shop naked.

[ConHog]

They do sometimes, but not always, and they dont have complete carte blanche. The law will restrict certain actions/rules, for example they cant deny entrance to someone based on their race or relgiion, or they cant charge different prices to different people.
.....And even when they can change policies, many times they will require Target to give the patrons a reasonable opportunity to comply, which isnt always immediately, or even that very day.

If a shopper comes prepared in a way that complies with existing policy, Target cannot make immediate changes that would cause said patron from shopping that particular day under certain circumstances that might create undue burdens upon the shopper.

Ummm yes they can.

Example. Here locally there is a store that accepted credit cards and thus SNAP benefits (foodstamps.) One day they just decided they didn't want to hassle with credit cards any more so they removed the card readers and stopped accepting them. Literally over night, no warning. The next day they of course had people wanting to buy things with their SNAP cards and they told them no we don't accept credit cards and can't take those either. They sued, they lost. The court ruled that they could NOT be compelled to accept credit cards.

At least not until welfare people become a protected class.

[jimnyc]

They do sometimes, but not always, and they dont have complete carte blanche. The law will restrict certain actions/rules, for example they cant deny entrance to someone based on their race or relgiion, or they cant charge different prices to different people.
.....And even when they can change policies, many times they will require Target to give the patrons a reasonable opportunity to comply, which isnt always immediately, or even that very day.

If a shopper comes prepared in a way that complies with existing policy, Target cannot make immediate changes that would cause said patron from shopping that particular day under certain circumstances that might create undue burdens upon the shopper.

The things you mention aren't policies, and would be illegal per discrimination laws. But so long as it's not illegal, they can have a lot of leeway in what is in their policies. But more importantly to this thread, they are free to ignore store policy or change it at their will. There are a few exceptions of course, but they are few and far between, and for the most part anything in there is merely a guideline from the store, but far from being any type of law and they have no obligation other than "appearance" to the customer. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that their policy states that they are free to change them as they see fit.

[ConHog]

WRONG AND WRONG.
Target cannot make policies or guidelines that conflict with existing laws. For example, they cant require everyone to shop naked.


ANd you're wrong. There is NO law preventing them from requiring people to shop naked. Just as there is NO law saying they must allow women to breastfeed out in the open in their store. Now if there were such a law, first it would be unconstitutional to tell someone else how they must run their business, but second if there WERE such a law, then Target could be compelled to follow it, but since there is no law, Target can do whatever they hell they like.

[jimnyc]

WRONG AND WRONG.
Target cannot make policies or guidelines that conflict with existing laws. For example, they cant require everyone to shop naked.

I never said anything even remotely otherwise. I simply said that their policies aren't law, and that they can change/ignore them whenever they please. Of course they can't have anything illegal in their policies.

[ConHog]

The things you mention aren't policies, and would be illegal per discrimination laws. But so long as it's not illegal, they can have a lot of leeway in what is in their policies. But more importantly to this thread, they are free to ignore store policy or change it at their will. There are a few exceptions of course, but they are few and far between, and for the most part anything in there is merely a guideline from the store, but far from being any type of law and they have no obligation other than "appearance" to the customer. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that their policy states that they are free to change them as they see fit.

He's missing the point that Target has a policy of allowing mothers to breastfeed in their stores not out of necessity of law, but out of good will towards those mothers, and they and their employees absolutely retain the right to deny that goodwill to any mother who they feel is abusing the privilege.

The whole thread really is that simple. And think how much better life would be for everyone if we all followed that simple principle. Enjoy your own rights and privileges without trampling all over those of others. It's that simple.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ummm yes they can.

Example. Here locally there is a store that accepted credit cards and thus SNAP benefits (foodstamps.) One day they just decided they didn't want to hassle with credit cards any more so they removed the card readers and stopped accepting them. Literally over night, no warning. The next day they of course had people wanting to buy things with their SNAP cards and they told them no we don't accept credit cards and can't take those either. They sued, they lost. The court ruled that they could NOT be compelled to accept credit cards.

At least not until welfare people become a protected class.

Ummm, yes, at times.
Your lack of proper logic doesnt allow you to see that when one says "there are times when Target cannot implement certain policies" doesnt mean "they cannot ever implement certain policies", so you can give example all you want of how they did something which I claiimed they are restricted from doing at times, because I didnt say they were restricted from doing it at any and all times.

[LuvRPgrl]

The things you mention aren't policies, and would be illegal per discrimination laws. But so long as it's not illegal, they can have a lot of leeway in what is in their policies. But more importantly to this thread, they are free to ignore store policy or change it at their will. There are a few exceptions of course, but they are few and far between, and for the most part anything in there is merely a guideline from the store, but far from being any type of law and they have no obligation other than "appearance" to the customer. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that their policy states that they are free to change them as they see fit.

which is precisely in direct contradiction to what you have posted: Target reserves the right to change/ignore or do whatever they want with their policy at anytime they please.

[ConHog]

Ummm, yes, at times.
Your lack of proper logic doesnt allow you to see that when one says "there are times when Target cannot implement certain policies" doesnt mean "they cannot ever implement certain policies", so you can give example all you want of how they did something which I claiimed they are restricted from doing at times, because I didnt say they were restricted from doing it at any and all times.

what lack of logic there is in this thread belongs to you.

I gave an example. Nothing more, nothing less. You're claim that Target is somehow compelled to follow their own policy is hilarious.

AND you are totally ignoring the absolute fact that their policy in fact states first and foremost that they should be encouraged to use the dressing rooms. Something this lady never even addressed in her one sided telling of events, and something you equally avoid.

[jimnyc]

which is precisely in direct contradiction to what you have posted: Target reserves the right to change/ignore or do whatever they want with their policy at anytime they please.

That's quite correct, they can change their policy whenever they feel like it. They can ignore it if they feel like it. Or do whatever they want <----- which is what I'm assuming you are having trouble with? Doing illegal things with their policy is not what was meant, what I meant with that is they can do as they please with their policies, as they're their policies and no law states they can't change/ignore them. Of course though I don't mean they can do anything illegal.

[ConHog]

which is precisely in direct contradiction to what you have posted: Target reserves the right to change/ignore or do whatever they want with their policy at anytime they please.

How do they conflict? We all acknowledge that the unconstitutional discrimination laws in this country would prevent Target from kicking a protected class member out of their stores, but if you're not a protected class member, you're fair game.

Here's another example. In southern Arkansas a few years ago, a fat man and his equally fat wife and kids were asked to leave a Golden Corral after literally two hours of grazing. They sued claiming they were being discriminated against and all you can eat meant all you can eat. They lost. Even though Golden Corral's WRITTEN policy is "all you can eat."

How is that ANY different.

[LuvRPgrl]

The things you mention aren't policies, and would be illegal per discrimination laws. But so long as it's not illegal, they can have a lot of leeway in what is in their policies. But more importantly to this thread, they are free to ignore store policy or change it at their will. There are a few exceptions of course, but they are few and far between, and for the most part anything in there is merely a guideline from the store, but far from being any type of law and they have no obligation other than "appearance" to the customer. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that their policy states that they are free to change them as they see fit.

which is a complete contradiction to what you have posted previously: Target has the right to change, enforce thier policy to whatever, and whenever they want.

[LuvRPgrl]

ANd you're wrong. There is NO law preventing them from requiring people to shop naked. Just as there is NO law saying they must allow women to breastfeed out in the open in their store. Now if there were such a law, first it would be unconstitutional to tell someone else how they must run their business, but second if there WERE such a law, then Target could be compelled to follow it, but since there is no law, Target can do whatever they hell they like.

you are joking right?

never said there was

good lord, for a self appointed constitutional expert, you sure can be awfully obtuse.

[LuvRPgrl]

He's missing the point that Target has a policy of allowing mothers to breastfeed in their stores not out of necessity of law, but out of good will towards those mothers, and they and their employees absolutely retain the right to deny that goodwill to any mother who they feel is abusing the privilege.

The whole thread really is that simple. And think how much better life would be for everyone if we all followed that simple principle. Enjoy your own rights and privileges without trampling all over those of others. It's that simple.

You seem to be missing the point that state, federal and local laws dont allow target or their employees to have carte blanche to act willy nilly when ever they want. AND BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING COMPLETELY WRONG AND STUPID, NOWHERE DID I SAY WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS WRONG, IM SIMPLY SAYING SOME OF THE THINGS STATED HERE AS "GROUNDS" FOR WHY IT IS RIGHT, ARE SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

[ConHog]

you are joking right?

never said there was

good lord, for a self appointed constitutional expert, you sure can be awfully obtuse.



If you're not saying there was, then why are you arguing that Target can't have illegal policies? That isn't even relevant to THIS discussion unless you are claiming that this policy is dictated by law...

YOU are the obtuse one my friend.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you're not saying there was, then why are you arguing that Target can't have illegal policies? That isn't even relevant to THIS discussion unless you are claiming that this policy is dictated by law...

YOU are the obtuse one my friend.

FIRST, let me tell ya something.
Saying "you can be obtuse at times" is not a personal attack, it is saying what you post sometimes is obtuse, the concept is obtuse,
I DIDNT call YOU obtuse.

Saying "you are the obtuse one" is a personal attack.

And it is relevant to the thread, otherwise, why did someone bring it up more than once?

[ConHog]

FIRST, let me tell ya something.
Saying "you can be obtuse at times" is not a personal attack, it is saying what you post sometimes is obtuse, the concept is obtuse,
I DIDNT call YOU obtuse.

Saying "you are the obtuse one" is a personal attack.

And it is relevant to the thread, otherwise, why did someone bring it up more than once?

Fine, consider it a personal attack and report it.

Second, I don't know WHO brought it up originally, but the law has nothing to do with this thread, because Target can do whatever they want in terms of this policy. If someone else brought it up, that doesn't give you leave to try to make it a valid point.

[jimnyc]

which is a complete contradiction to what you have posted previously: Target has the right to change, enforce thier policy to whatever, and whenever they want.

I've never stated that Target could place whatever they want in their policy. My stance is that they have the right to ignore/change their policy whenever they want. If you want me to add an *asterisk stating "so long as they don't break laws in the process" - sure. But I thought that went without me saying, since I'm the one that stated to begin with that the reason they can ignore/change their policy whenever they want, is because there is no law saying they can't.

[ConHog]

I've never stated that Target could place whatever they want in their policy. My stance is that they have the right to ignore/change their policy whenever they want. If you want me to add an *asterisk stating "so long as they don't break laws in the process" - sure. But I thought that went without me saying, since I'm the one that stated to begin with that the reason they can ignore/change their policy whenever they want, is because there is no law saying they can't.

He's trying to turn this into an all or nothing debate rather than just talking about this ONE policy.

don't let him.

[LuvRPgrl]

Quite the opposite. I believe Target as a private company should be able to have whatever policy they wish and their employees obviously should follow them. But just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. A person of any decency would go somewhere private to breast feed regardless of the policy of the store she is in.

This was the first post regarding Targets ability or restrictions of making or changing policy.
It says nothing about it being related only to breastfeeding.
and if you were arguing the other side, you would claim you "meant" it in a broad sense,
but if you are arguing your current side, you will claim you "meant" it in a narrow sense.

And they dont have carte blance to make whatever policies they want regarding just breastfeeding.

I dont have all day to be here, gotta go outside and enjoy the sunshite and beach with my kids, so I will get back later to any responses, so if I dont respond within 5 minutes, dont let that allow you to think I have capitulated.

[ConHog]

This was the first post regarding Targets ability or restrictions of making or changing policy.
It says nothing about it being related only to breastfeeding.
and if you were arguing the other side, you would claim you "meant" it in a broad sense,
but if you are arguing your current side, you will claim you "meant" it in a narrow sense.

And they dont have carte blance to make whatever policies they want regarding just breastfeeding.

I dont have all day to be here, gotta go outside and enjoy the sunshite and beach with my kids, so I will get back later to any responses, so if I dont respond within 5 minutes, dont let that allow you to think I have capitulated.

You don't have to worry about that LUV , no one will ever mistake you for someone who admits to an error.

PS , what is sunshite? Well, whatever it is, I hope you enjoy it.

[LuvRPgrl]

You don't have to worry about that LUV , no one will ever mistake you for someone who admits to an error.

PS , what is sunshite? Well, whatever it is, I hope you enjoy it.

sunshite is plural for sunshine...

AGAIN,,,,
You made a statement, I showed ;you were wrong, but you ignored it, instead focused on a typo:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=513528#post513528)
Quite the opposite. I believe Target as a private company should be able to have whatever policy they wish and their employees obviously should follow them. But just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. A person of any decency would go somewhere private to breast feed regardless of the policy of the store she is in.


This was the first post regarding Targets ability or restrictions of making or changing policy.
It says nothing about it being related only to breastfeeding.
and if you were arguing the other side, you would claim you "meant" it in a broad sense,
but if you are arguing your current side, you will claim you "meant" it in a narrow sense.

And they dont have carte blance to make whatever policies they want regarding just breastfeeding.

[LuvRPgrl]

I've never stated that Target could place whatever they want in their policy. My stance is that they have the right to ignore/change their policy whenever they want. If you want me to add an *asterisk stating "so long as they don't break laws in the process" - sure. But I thought that went without me saying, since I'm the one that stated to begin with that the reason they can ignore/change their policy whenever they want, is because there is no law saying they can't.

Your first two statements contradict each other.
As for your asterisk, it applies to their breasfeeding policy also, hence, saying they can make, change or do whatever they please re: their breastfeeding policy, it simply aint true.

[jimnyc]

Your first two statements contradict each other.
As for your asterisk, it applies to their breasfeeding policy also, hence, saying they can make, change or do whatever they please re: their breastfeeding policy, it simply aint true.

They don't contradict one another at all, point it out specifically if that's the case. And yes, they most certainly can ignore their policy on breastfeeding. Why would you think otherwise?

[ConHog]

They don't contradict one another at all, point it out specifically if that's the case. And yes, they most certainly can ignore their policy on breastfeeding. Why would you think otherwise?


It seems like he mistakenly believes that a corporation is required by the COTUS to stick to their own internal policies.

[LuvRPgrl]

They don't contradict one another at all, point it out specifically if that's the case. And yes, they most certainly can ignore their policy on breastfeeding. Why would you think otherwise?

Yea, you are right, I missread the first sentence.
I didnt say they cant ignore their pollicy,
but they cant just flat out make any policy they want to.
Some policies could be contrived that would in fact conflict with existing law.

[ConHog]

Yea, you are right, I missread the first sentence.
I didnt say they cant ignore their pollicy,
but they cant just flat out make any policy they want to.
Some policies could be contrived that would in fact conflict with existing law.

Do you really suppose there is a single person here who doesn't understand that Target can't make illegal policies?

That isn't what we are talking about. We're talking about this ONE particular circumstance. You've admitted that Target can change/modify/ignore their policy, so why are you still arguing?

[fj1200]

Hey, it's only YOU who is shooting down what everyone states and trumping "store policy" as if it's law. It's YOU all along who ASSUMES that this woman's version of events is 100% the truth. Have at it if you will!! But Target and their employees can STILL ignore/change policy whenever they damn well please and her ONLY recourse is to complain and/or shop elsewhere.

I'm shooting down your assumptions? Silly me. :rolleyes: I'm still not sure how you think that employees, who are merely agents of the corporate owners, have the authority to just alter stated policy at will; I'm sure you'll provide some evidence that Target allows their employees that discretion.


Wrong.

Whatever, infer from my words what you must.


Employees are representatives of Target and have the right to work around, or change, or ignore policy when necessary. There is no law that the company must do ANYTHING with their policy, nor law that says anything about their employees. It's all up to Target and their employees. And even more so if it was a manager in the area, which from I read there was, as managers have the right to do what they feel is necessary with the store policy. If you don't like that, tough shit, whine to corporate like this woman did. But just stating that those working there can't change/ignore policy because you say so is wrong.

You'll have evidence that Target allows such discretion as agent's of the corporation? Also, please state where I said that Target is bound by law.


I love how you write "target rules" LOL It's simply a guideline, not "requirements". And AGAIN, they reserve the right to change this, whenever they damn well please, and whiners can choose to shop elsewhere.

And she HASN'T met requirements, as she was asked to move a very short distance into a fitting room. She didn't meet the requirement and chose to bitch instead.

Please show has she has not followed the policy as stated.


That's the impression I'm getting from him to, that he thinks Target is bound by law to provide ANY kind of policy regarding breast feeding.

They are not. Their policy COULD be "we leave it to store managers, since that obviously makes sense that one policy can't cover all situations"

I didn't think FJ was one of those people who confusedly thinks that citizens have a right to anything from private entities. But it sure appears he does.

Please provide some posts of mine to back your assertion.

BTW, Target didn't make that their policy did they? That would be a fine policy but that's not what they did. Please state where she has not met the requirements as stated.

[fj1200]

Example. Here locally there is a store that accepted credit cards and thus SNAP benefits (foodstamps.) One day they just decided they didn't want to hassle with credit cards any more so they removed the card readers and stopped accepting them.

Apples and dumptrucks. Do you think that the local Target can just stop taking credit cards in defiance of the corporate office?

[ConHog]

Apples and dumptrucks. Do you think that the local Target can just stop taking credit cards in defiance of the corporate office?

I think the local target can do whatever they want in regard to corporate policy if the corporation doesn't care.

That's the point. If corporate doesn't want to enforce their policy they are under no obligation to do so.

[fj1200]

I think the local target can do whatever they want in regard to corporate policy if the corporation doesn't care.

That's the point. If corporate doesn't want to enforce their policy they are under no obligation to do so.

Do you think they created the policy because they "don't care"?

BTW, have you changed your position from page 1?


I believe Target as a private company should be able to have whatever policy they wish and their employees obviously should follow them.

[ConHog]

Do you think they created the policy because they "don't care"?

BTW, have you changed your position from page 1?

No I haven't changed my position. Targets policy was actually followed here. That the last didn't like being asked to step into a dressing room doesn't negate that.

But when there are two competition.g policies. One about breast feeding and one about making as many customers comfortable as possible. Sometime those policies clash. Too bad.

This is just this simple.

1. Do you admit that target can set whatever standards they want upon their customers (within the law of course?)

2. Do you admit that it likely that a corporation such as target has delegated to their various employees the ability to implement policy as fairly as possible without involving the corporate office with every problem?

[fj1200]

No I haven't changed my position. Targets policy was actually followed here. That the last didn't like being asked to step into a dressing room doesn't negate that.

But when there are two competition.g policies. One about breast feeding and one about making as many customers comfortable as possible. Sometime those policies clash. Too bad.

This is just this simple.

1. Do you admit that target can set whatever standards they want upon their customers (within the law of course?)

2. Do you admit that it likely that a corporation such as target has delegated to their various employees the ability to implement policy as fairly as possible without involving the corporate office with every problem?

It sure reads as though you've changed your position, not sure how to read it otherwise. Also please point out how policy, as stated, was followed. I haven't read anywhere where customers were uncomfortable.

1. Where have I stated otherwise? 2. Where have I stated otherwise? But before you feel the need to jump on point #2, please point out how policy, as stated​, was followed.

[LuvRPgrl]

Do you really suppose there is a single person here who doesn't understand that Target can't make illegal policies?

That isn't what we are talking about. We're talking about this ONE particular circumstance. You've admitted that Target can change/modify/ignore their policy, so why are you still arguing?Tex. Health Code Ann. § 161.071 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.161.htm#161.071) (2001) requires the Department of Health to establish minimum guidelines for the procurement, processing, distribution, or use of human milk by donor milk banks. (HB 391)
Tex. Health Code Ann. § 165.002 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.165.htm#165.002) (1995) authorizes a woman to breastfeed her child in any location.
Tex. Health Code Ann. § 165.003 et seq. (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.165.htm#165.003) provides for the use of a "mother-friendly" designation for businesses who have policies supporting worksite breastfeeding. (HB 340) The law provides for a worksite breastfeeding demonstration project and requires the Department of Health to develop recommendations supporting worksite breastfeeding. (HB 359)

[ConHog]

It sure reads as though you've changed your position, not sure how to read it otherwise. Also please point out how policy, as stated, was followed. I haven't read anywhere where customers were uncomfortable.

1. Where have I stated otherwise? 2. Where have I stated otherwise? But before you feel the need to jump on point #2, please point out how policy, as stated​, was followed.

There policy , as I understand it, is to first try to get patrons who need to breastfeed to move into a dressing room. The lady admits that is exactly what the employee tried to do and she refused to move. As far as I can tell no further action was taken. She wasn't removed from the store by security or any such. Was she?

As far as customers complaining. Who says an employee has to wait for that to happen? I fully admit that most people are stupid. But it seems to me that Target MIGHT put enough trust in their employees to make a judgement BEFORE a situation turns into something unpleasant for customers. IE if someone throws rotten food into a changing room the store policy is clean it up BEFORE a customer complains.

[ConHog]

Tex. Health Code Ann. § 161.071 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.161.htm#161.071) (2001) requires the Department of Health to establish minimum guidelines for the procurement, processing, distribution, or use of human milk by donor milk banks. (HB 391)
Tex. Health Code Ann. § 165.002 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.165.htm#165.002) (1995) authorizes a woman to breastfeed her child in any location.
Tex. Health Code Ann. § 165.003 et seq. (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.165.htm#165.003) provides for the use of a "mother-friendly" designation for businesses who have policies supporting worksite breastfeeding. (HB 340) The law provides for a worksite breastfeeding demonstration project and requires the Department of Health to develop recommendations supporting worksite breastfeeding. (HB 359)


That's nice, Texas code authorizes a woman to breastfeed anywhere she is allowed to do so. It doesn't require anyone to LET her do it. IE lets see a woman breastfeed in a middle school in Texas. She better go into a restroom or other privacy if she does.

[fj1200]

There policy , as I understand it, is to first try to get patrons who need to breastfeed to move into a dressing room. The lady admits that is exactly what the employee tried to do and she refused to move. As far as I can tell no further action was taken. She wasn't removed from the store by security or any such. Was she?

The policy gives two options; each valid. It's not first choice and then the second choice. Then they went the extra step to make her feel uncomfortable, against the policy.


As far as customers complaining. Who says an employee has to wait for that to happen? I fully admit that most people are stupid. But it seems to me that Target MIGHT put enough trust in their employees to make a judgement BEFORE a situation turns into something unpleasant for customers. IE if someone throws rotten food into a changing room the store policy is clean it up BEFORE a customer complains.

What is their basis for action prior to complaint? If there is no complaint then their policy is valid. If she had whipped out the ladies then they would have had a reason to intervene but if she was truly acting in a discreet manner in accordance with the policy then any action is unnecessary. Why do you keep bringing in analogies that are not on point?

[jimnyc]

I cry for mercy, fj!! Hopefully we can agree to disagree. We can go round and round forever and it's not going to change. There's no law addressing these issues, and for that fact we don't even have a list of Target policies to properly address these issues. I see your POV for the most part but as you can see I have my own take on the power of their policies. But I'm not going away mad, I had my say and I'm cool with that. You made some damn good points and I'm cool with that too. Sometimes I just hate reiterating our points till our fingers bleed!

:beer:

[fj1200]

:beer:

[ConHog]

I cry for mercy, fj!! Hopefully we can agree to disagree. We can go round and round forever and it's not going to change. There's no law addressing these issues, and for that fact we don't even have a list of Target policies to properly address these issues. I see your POV for the most part but as you can see I have my own take on the power of their policies. But I'm not going away mad, I had my say and I'm cool with that. You made some damn good points and I'm cool with that too. Sometimes I just hate reiterating our points till our fingers bleed!

:beer:



Good call. I think I'm done with this thread as well.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's nice, Texas code authorizes a woman to breastfeed anywhere she is allowed to do so. It doesn't require anyone to LET her do it. IE lets see a woman breastfeed in a middle school in Texas. She better go into a restroom or other privacy if she does.

BREAST FEED HER CHILD IN ANY LOCATION.
You said there were NO LAWS concerning it.
There is a period at the end of the sentence.
As for the middle school, she can be removed anyways, breast feeding or not. If she were allowed on the school property, what would be the big deal if she did breast feed? And what part of that law cited doesnt apply?

[LuvRPgrl]

I cry for mercy, fj!! Hopefully we can agree to disagree. We can go round and round forever and it's not going to change. There's no law addressing these issues, and for that fact we don't even have a list of Target policies to properly address these issues. I see your POV for the most part but as you can see I have my own take on the power of their policies. But I'm not going away mad, I had my say and I'm cool with that. You made some damn good points and I'm cool with that too. Sometimes I just hate reiterating our points till our fingers bleed!

:beer:

If this is done, then its done. But I do want to point out, there are laws re": breastfeeding in public and private places. Maybe Im on your ignore list.

[jimnyc]

If this is done, then its done. But I do want to point out, there are laws re": breastfeeding in public and private places. Maybe Im on your ignore list.

I was speaking with fj1200 in my response. But as to what you posted.... Most of the entries deals with employment law, and the other is certainly not applying to "private property". I see nothing at all in your codes that would make it "law" for a company to allow breastfeeding on their private property. If that were the case, that would mean that the target employees "broke the law" and should be arrested or at the very least given a citation. There's a reason this has not happened.

[fj1200]

I cry for mercy, fj!! Hopefully we can agree to disagree.


Good call. I think I'm done with this thread as well.

Of course, of course. But who would have thought we could make a 15 page thread about breastfeeding. :laugh:

This was about as much fun as the thread I stumbled across today where the merchant was giving out vouchers for an AK-47. :salute:

[ConHog]

Of course, of course. But who would have thought we could make a 15 page thread about breastfeeding. :laugh:

This was about as much fun as the thread I stumbled across today where the merchant was giving out vouchers for an AK-47. :salute:

I remember that thread . It was maybe one of the first long threads I was involved in. Funny similarity. Most of the people in THIS thread will probably never breast feed, and MOST of the people in that thread will probably never handle a semi automatic rifle.

[Abbey Marie]

I remember that thread . It was maybe one of the first long threads I was involved in. Funny similarity. Most of the people in THIS thread will probably never breast feed, and MOST of the people in that thread will probably never handle a semi automatic rifle.

If we had to experience firsthand every thing we opined about, these boards wouldn't exist. Also, while every one of may not have breastfed, I'll wager everyone of us has handled a breast. Possibly even two!
:laugh2:

[Jess]

If we had to experience firsthand every thing we opined about, these boards wouldn't exist. Also, while every one of may not have breastfed, I'll wager everyone of us has handled a breast. Possibly even two!
:laugh2:

Please don't resurrect this thread, Abbey. My brain hurts and I feel like I'm stuck with my kids in here.

[Abbey Marie]

Please don't resurrect this thread, Abbey. My brain hurts and I feel like I'm stuck with my kids in here.

LOl, anything for you, Jess. :cool:

[LuvRPgrl]

If we had to experience firsthand every thing we opined about, these boards wouldn't exist. Also, while every one of may not have breastfed, I'll wager everyone of us has handled a breast. Possibly even two!
:laugh2:

I had three once !

and I have breast feed too.

[Abbey Marie]

I had three once !

and I have breast feed too.

Do I want to know how that happened? LOL!

In closing, a joke from Rodney, my favorite comedian of all time:

"My mother never breast fed me. She told me that she only liked me as a friend."

[Trigg]

wow I leave for a few days and a great discussion like this takes place. But out of respect for Jess I won't resurrect the thread, also I figure everything has already been said.

I will point out that I've nursed in changing rooms, restaurants, air planes, basically just about everywhere and I doubt most people even noticed since I always had a blanket drapped over the baby so nothing was "hanging out". I don't see any problem with nursing in public as long as everyones dignity is left intact.

[ConHog]

I had three once !

and I have breast feed too.


2982


:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Do I want to know how that happened? LOL!."

which one?:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

Of course, of course. But who would have thought we could make a 15 page thread about breastfeeding. :laugh:

This was about as much fun as the thread I stumbled across today where the merchant was giving out vouchers for an AK-47. :salute:

I'm surprised its only 15 pages.!

[fj1200]

^Jess is going to be mad at you. :poke:

[Jess]

^Jess is going to be mad at you. :poke:

Yep. I'm a real meanie too. Just ask Gunny. :wink2: