Posted on 05/20/2014 7:36:10 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
A woman who had hoped to promote her family-owned business at the National Restaurant Association trade show over the weekend was instead driving back to her Minnesota home Sunday.
Kristin Osborne was escorted out of the exhibit hall at McCormick Place on Saturday, she said, because she was carrying an infant. Osborne, 31, knew about the trade show rule that does not allow children under 16, she said, but did not think it would apply to her sleeping, 10-day-old baby wrapped closely to her chest. Osborne left her two other children, ages 2 and 4, at home, but said she has never been kicked out of a place for having an infant.
"As a working mother — and I have been working since I had my first one — this is a big surprise to me," said Osborne, who takes charge of marketing for her family-owned Spring Valley winery, Four Daughters Vineyard. "I have brought my babies all sorts of places. You don't bring children to adult places, but he eats every hour currently."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Who? Who takes their 10 day old out of state just to breast feed in public?
“Who takes their 10 day old out of state just to breast feed in public?”
Perhaps a working mother.
Go pick on a welfare queen instead.
why would it not apply to her 10-day old baby?
“She can bring her child. Why can’t I bring my child? I’m going to sue”.
Now that you got that snark out of the way; go read the article.
This is all about exercising her right to breastfeed in public.
Where is the logic in her reasoning?
Is it a child? Or is it just a group of cells? For some people (Peter Singer) this may be a source of confusion.
Where is the logic in her reasoning?
________________________________________
Good question. Maybe I’m wrong, but I see this as her being entitled. She has a right to breastfeed in public, and by golly if she has to drive 200 miles out of state to feed her 10 day old - then she’s gonna do it!
Yep, I think you hit it right on the head.
as far as business is concerned, not a wise move on her part, and i do not think she was really that naive about it... her husband or someone else representing the winery ought to have gone to pour... instead no one is representing their winery...
A mature people interpret rules to make them appropriate to circumstances. Rules are not laws. They are not immutable. They are a convenience for participants. The rigid application of rules leads to excesses such as sending little boys home from school for drawing pictures or eating cookies.
It is obnoxious to allow ignorant watchdogs enforce rules intended to create a comfortable environment. Their blatant disregard for the intention of rules is the very foundation of tyrannical rule in civil society. The succor of an infant is a sacred act. Disallowing a mother and participant to care for and feed her infant is a vulgarity.
and that is exactly what this is about... and she (they) sacrificed business for their winery to make this point... how is it that this little story is news?
Taking a 10 day old baby into a trade show that attracts tens of thousands of people from all over the country? I don’t care what her motivation is, she’s a freaking moron. I feel sorry for this kid having to grow up with a mother who has been spared from the ravages of intelligence.
i get what you are saying... but i believe it was obnoxious of her to show up and assume... she could have called before hand to find out if they would accommodate her... but i know why she did not do that...
Because the only reason for exclusion of children is the possibility of a rug-rat getting loose, wandering into the infrastructure, and being injured (or causing damage, or both). Not gonna happen with a "babe in arms".
The rule needs to be re-written to reflect today's realities.
No, it isn't. Nobody says she can't breastfeed anywhere she wants to. She is attending an event which she probably clicked the little button that says, "by signing up, you agree to these rules." There you go. Sorry, lady, you should have gotten a sitter, or a supportive husband. She knew the rules, and tried to "grey area" her compliance.
The problem is that the "grey area" is used to destroy the rule of law every day. Illegal alien, hiding in the shadows for years, poor thing, deserves citizenship. It can be anywhere from decades to days, when amnesty happens.
So, where to draw the line? Well, 16 is what the rule says. Pregnant is never determined to be a child, so if she had gone 11 days earlier, no gray area. 1 day old? Suddenly, we have a grey area? I don't think so. 10, 15, 20, 30? Next thing you know, there is no rule.
Stories of this kind are like a Rorschach test for commentators. It’s weirdly fascinating.
yes--i can see it now... "so what if i still breastfeed my three-year old... who is anyone to judge me?"
Why would she assume her child would be the exception to the rule?? Why not contact the coordinators first before bringing the baby with her??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.