That's not the only problem the church is having with the group. And, no, they wouldn't have to give a reason at all for ousting the group. They can simply say that they just don't want to host the group at their church any longer. They don't have to let the group use their facilities at all, and there's no reason that's necessary for refusing them.
I may be wrong, but in rereading the OP, I don't believe the clothing issue is an issue with the church, it is with the coop's rules. The only issue that we know that was brought up by the church itself is the breastfeeding issue. I really think that the group leader or the group as a whole needs to bring to light for the church the laws protecting the nursing mothers. If the church ousts them now, since they have said something about the breastfeeding, whether or not they give a reason to stop hosting them, it can be held against them, it would be a classic discrimination case.
is it possible that the church leadership is unaware of the laws protecting breastfeeding mothers? Perhaps a gentle..."ummm, are ya'll aware of a,b, and c. We are not trying to be obnoxious, but if you were to bring this up to the wrong person...perhaps a visitor on a Sunday morning, you may be putting yourself in a difficult legal position." Lots of times, church workers will err on the side of trying not to offend the older generations (pillars of the church) since they have great respect for those older folks. However, they may be assuming an offense that is not there, as most of the older generation at my church (the 75+ crowd) grew up around nursing moms and think it is the best thing in the world for babies. What is wrong with the church saying, "sure go ahead...nurse anywhere you like...just please try to be discreet. " I personally would not be offended at that..and I nursed all four of my babies. Of course an understanding person is going to realize that sometimes a baby WILL pull a blanket off or unlatch at an inopportune moment. And if these are men who are offended....someone needs to teach them some manners. My dh practices the whole "look away" thing when someone needs to cover up, even if that person is NOT breastfeeding. (I've seen more boobage in our teen girls Sunday school class that I ever have from breastfeeding mothers! But that is off topic) So I tell my daughters, we cover our bodies out of modesty, and I will teach my son that he needs to control where his eyes linger.
My understanding is that they were also restricting breastfeeding from the classrooms as well. I know in the recent past there have been mom's teaching there with infants, who wore a sling and nursed while teaching. We haven't participated in this particular co-op since it's first year, so I am hearing this through the grapevine. Personally, it seems a very odd situation for the co-op leadership to tolerate - one of the leaders was also a LLL leader. They should not be ignorant of the state's breastfeeding laws.
I wasn't trying to say being able to breastfeed your child is a non-issue. I also wasn't trying to offend anyone, but apparently there are high emotions on the issue. Maybe some of you have had personal issues with this and are therefore more sensitive to the issue. Then again, maybe I am wrong. To me it is a non-issue because no one is taking away anyone's right to breastfeed their child. They are not saying that they can't breastfeed in the church or that they have to go to a dirty or uncomforatable place even. That is why to me it is a non-issue. I believe it has become a hot topic is because many people felt discriminated against because they were told they had to go to the public bathroom or such to feed their children. To me that is perfectly unacceptable. I know there are many other issues other than that, but I believe situations such as those gave rise to people complaining about being able to breastfeed in public. I woudln't want to breastfeed my child in a public restroom nor would I want to eat a sandwich in a public restroom. However, I also wouldn't eat a sandwich in the church foyer out of respect for my church. I know these are vague analogies, but I think if you make a major issue out of location just because you can I'm not sure what you have acccomplished. You've created a stir up, but your child is no more well fed. I personally as a mother would appreciate a room that is not in the middle of where everyone came through the door. It would make me feel more comfortable, but as I can see some of you disagree. Again, not trying to say that being able to breastfeed your child is a "non-issue". I believe don't think we need to stir up needless controversies and that is why I almost didn't post to begin with. I will leave it at that because again I don't think we need to have a needless stir up on the board. People have different opinions and convictions and as long we are in line with God's word, then we're ok. Otherwise, we need to check ourselves and put it in perspective.
Ok I have BF all three of my kids, in public with a sling so nobody saw anything. Most didn't even know I had a baby with me. LOL That said. I don't see where most of you get off agreeing with a law that restricts a private property owners right to do what ever they please with their property! No matter what it is that it is restricting or allowing. It is on the same field as not allowing smoking in private restaurants or buildings, not allowing guns in private buildings or on a private citizens person or home. WE have the right to private property, which should mean we can do with it as we see fit, since we have to pay the stupid taxes on it. WE should be allowed to limit who ever, when ever, doing what ever we please. Others should be allowed to do as they see fit. Wither we like it or not. They should be allowed to tell us no breastfeeding in the foyer, no peeing in the restaurant, no sex in the lobby. They should be allowed to build a trash dump next door to my house (as long as it isn't on my land), because it is theirs. WE have ways to control others behaviors (money, picketing, letters, negative publicity...etc) IT IS MINE, YOURS or Theirs! Now government buildings or things like that different stories. YES I agree the church should not have said anything, that is more about the beliefs or morals of the church. But I have also been around a few woman who would not cover up and just hang it all out there while nursing quoting how "natural" it is. Peeing is a natural event and yet we limit that to certain rooms, sex is a natural event and it too is limited to areas where it is acceptable. I am sure that those who are saying BF is natural and should be covered by law would not stand for laws demanding that the private businesses allow sex when ever and where ever the couple wanted to preform. It is natural, allowed by law to happen, involves some of the same parts. But they won't even allow pictures of it where kids can see them. We wouldn't have babies to BF if we didn't have sex ( most of the time). It even talks about it in the bible. Why not write a law forcing churches to allow sex in their foyers. IT is a natural, biblical thing. If you say well that isn't modest, modest isn't in the Constitution, it isn't in the Declaration of Independence. But private property rights are. The way I read the OP's post is that the church said something, which in all the churches I have been in, they would not say anything unless it was causing a problem. The coop is a tenant in the building (a private property) paying rent which I am sure has an agreement that they will follow the wishes of the church. If the majority of the women do not want to follow those wishes then they should find a new place to meet. If not I would put it in writing and let everybody sign it and ask them to please obey the new rule out of COURTESY to the church and the business that is going on there during the coop time. I know that it is the law, but we bigger people then that, just kindly let your dollars do your speaking. The same as not eating at a restaurant that doesn't treat you well. They might give the church a copy of the state law as they are leaving or something like that. Then the Church is made aware of the law, the group is speaking with their pocket books ( no more rent), they are standing up for the BF mothers. But it is done in a civil manner. There is no need for a lawsuit, or a threatened one. Because to be honest once that is threatened the coop's time there is limited, because the church will find any excuse to kick them out. So just move on on your own.
I'm a total lactivist, and a LLL Leader applicant. So, Actressdancer, I agree with what you are TRYING to say. However, you are misrepresenting LLL and need to stop, get your facts straight, and try again. Federal laws only apply to federal land. The new Obama Health Care's provision only applies to workers in workplaces. The only federal BF law before that only applied to federal land. LLL is well aware of the lack of legal protection in various states. You should check your facts before spouting stuff like this. I live in one of the four "red states" where there is NO protection for nursing mothers. Let me tell you, every NIP situation is a potentially hairy, news-making situation where I have to be ready to either battle or not. If I lived here without knowing about LLL and read what you said, I'd think LLL was stupid. Please be careful when you are claiming to represent a wonderful organization. Dude, if you're going to type like an expert, get your facts right! YOU are the one who keeps mentioning "country" and "federal." So decide on a more clear soapbox before you step up on it. Darn! I came on here to research something and wound up wasting time on this. now it's bedtime. To the OP, good luck with your decision. I like FairFarmHand's post.
So, the only thing I could see in all this is that the church FOYER was where they were asked not to BF. Could it be that it is a fire hazard to have people gather there? I don't know this church, but I belonged to one that had a special "gathering" area off the foyer - the foyer had to be kept clear for fire safety reasons, so everyone was asked to move. BUT - it other people gather there, and just the BF moms were asked to move, THEN it become a BF issue. I never had anyone ask me to move (I nursed modestly in front of my Grandfather once and I thought the man was going to have a heart-attack. A different generation for sure!), but I would not want to see my own reaction if they had . . . haha. Also, I know different states have different rules regarding what is "protected" rights for BF moms. BUT (again) that's ALL i know!
