Man Who Complained About Breastfeeding Mother Gets Thrown Out Of Cafe

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I can do as I please, just as you often do when viewing people as seen here.
All you are doing is claiming what kind of clientele you desire and have no idea what she might desire, hence a moot point to say the least.

What a childish reply - you can do as you please, but if you make a tit of yourself, I'll let you know. Pun intended.  

Why shouldn't I decide what kind of clientele I prefer? That's why I go to a certain cafe - I like the sort of people who I see there. She can decide too, and she has, but there was no need for her to get so arsy about it.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why do they need to? Why do you feel the need to tell everyone what they should like and what they shouldn't like? It's up to them - it's called freedom of choice, which extends to the freedom to decide what they like or don't like.

They can go elsewhere, but it might be too late if they're already there and a load of women come in and start breastfeeding and gossiping about potties. Still, if one knows the local cafes, one gets to know which type one prefers.

The answer to that again is tough shit.
Again they are the backward idiots living in a by-gone age where they feel awkward about.
I would question the very fact why they would get so easily bothered about women talk and then going to a place where that is likley to take place. It shows your views are all backwards. Clearly someone at odds with such a thing would not frequent busy areas, but out of the way places if they cherish quite. Some Libraries now cater such things are suich a place.
Your views really are two dimentional when you fail to see such an individual no doubt would be bothered by many kinds of talking.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What a childish reply - you can do as you please, but if you make a tit of yourself, I'll let you know. Pun intended.  

Why shouldn't I decide what kind of clientele I prefer? That's why I go to a certain cafe - I like the sort of people who I see there. She can decide too, and she has, but there was no need for her to get so arsy about it.

I am not saying you should not decide for yourself, but you seem to be of the high opinion what is best for this cafe, which is why I said your point was mooot and I wll add very idiotic to say the least.
All you are doing is assuming yet again and what would suit you. Maybe you need to have a debate inside your own head for that lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

The answer to that again is tough shit.
Again they are the backward idiots living in a by-gone age where they feel awkward about.
I would question the very fact why they would get so easily bothered about women talk and then going to a place where that is likley to take place. It shows your views are all backwards. Clearly someone at odds with such a thing would not frequent busy areas, but out of the way places if they cherish quite. Some Libraries now cater such things are suich a place.
Your views really are two dimentional when you fail to see such an individual no doubt would be bothered by many kinds of talking.

You don't believe in freedom of choice do you? You judge everyone and decide for them what they should like or not.

The point is that the man probably didn't know that kind of thing was likely to take place there. She's now told the whole world, so others can decide for themselves whether to go there or not. You seem to take offence at people's freedom to like a certain place or not, or to like certain conversations or not.

I would probably avoid a pub or cafe where I knew that men gathered regularly to discuss football very loudly, or to watch it on the TV with the sound turned up to its full capacity. I suppose you have a problem with that too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I am not saying you should not decide for yourself, but you seem to be of the high opinion what is best for this cafe, which is why I said your point was mooot and I wll add very idiotic to say the least.
All you are doing is assuming yet again and what would suit you. Maybe you need to have a debate inside your own head for that lol

Well the woman put her business out there, so I'm commenting. You started this thread, so you put it out there as well. What did you expect to happen? For everyone to gasp and say how fabulous the owner is?

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't believe in freedom of choice do you? You judge everyone and decide for them what they should like or not.

The point is that the man probably didn't know that kind of thing was likely to take place there. She's now told the whole world, so others can decide for themselves whether to go there or not. You seem to take offence at people's freedom to like a certain place or not, or to like certain conversations or not.

I would probably avoid a pub or cafe where I knew that men gathered regularly to discuss football very loudly, or to watch it on the TV with the sound turned up to its full capacity. I suppose you have a problem with that too.

I am giving freedom of choice, you though want to make an impossible situation, where you cannot cater for all people, no matter how hard you try. Its like I said, when you look at this, you failed to see why such a person would even frequent such a place if other people talking would bother them, it just does not fit..

Again more assumptions about what the man knew about, which shows you just make up any reason to find excuses for the idiot, who after being told it was breastfeeding friendly and was that bothered should have left or gond inside. He did neither, of which you fail to grasp. He instead then had the audacity to be a completw fuckwit and be intimidating to the woman basically asking her to cover up as if it was wrong what she was doing. I have zero sympathy for such a twat like that. At every opportunity he made the problems occur, nobody else did this except him.

You do as best suits you, but as you say you avoided the place, as soon as he saw this, what should he have done?
Left and avoided the place, yet he choose to stay and acted like a twat, hence he was rightly told to sling his hook

Belatucadros wrote:Right I have work to do.
There is no defense for this man, he brought on everything himsef.

laters

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I am giving freedom of choice, you though want to make an impossible situation, where you cannot cater for all people, no matter how hard you try. Its like I said, when you look at this, you failed to see why such a person would even frequent such a place if other people talking would bother them, it just does not fit..

Again more assumptions about what the man knew about, which shows you just make up any reason to find excuses for the idiot, who after being told it was breastfeeding friendly and was that bothered should have left or gond inside. He did neither, of which you fail to grasp. He instead then had the audacity to be a completw fuckwit and be intimidating to the woman basically asking her to cover up as if it was wrong what she was doing. I have zero sympathy for such a twat like that. At every opportunity he made the problems occur, nobody else did this except him.

You do as best suits you, but as you say you avoided the place, as soon as he saw this, what should he have done?
Left and avoided the place, yet he choose to stay and acted like a twat, hence he was rightly told to sling his hook

I just told you - the man probably didn't know who else went to the cafe.Assumption, making excuses If he knew that it was a mothers' meeting place, its not a mothers meeting place, its a cafe, you assuming again he probably wouldn't have gone there Assumption again, many cafes have women and mothers with thgeir children frequent them, he would have to be very stupid to think otherwise. Your assumption that he did know is illogical. Know its very logical that he would have to be very stupid not to think women do not frequent cafes

We don't know what he said - the article just says that he spoke to the woman. The owner threw a strop and got outraged. She then threw a strop on the internet, and spoke to the press over something which didn't really merit such a fuss.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just told you - the man probably didn't know who else went to the cafe.Assumption, making excuses If he knew that it was a mothers' meeting place, its not a mothers meeting place, its a cafe, you assuming again he probably wouldn't have gone there Assumption again, many cafes have women and mothers with thgeir children frequent them, he would have to be very stupid to think otherwise. Your assumption that he did know is illogical. Know its very logical that he would have to be very stupid not to think women do not frequent cafes

We don't know what he said - the article just says that he spoke to the woman. The owner threw a strop and got outraged. She then threw a strop on the internet, and spoke to the press over something which didn't really merit such a fuss.

Again he was told it was breastfeeding friendly.
He after being told this asked the woman to cover up.
That is harrasment, and he has not right to do so even more after being advised.
He was a complete twat and I am so happy, not only did he get told to basically jog on, but now his stupidity was rightly told all over the web.
Its a shame she did not get his name to shame the idiot further.
This cafe owner is someone to be proud of. She did the right thing and stood up for women being harrassed by mindless idiots. She then told the story to the world as it should be so more people can help fight againt such backward idiots who think they can tell women feeding their children what to do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Again he was told it was breastfeeding friendly.
He after being told this asked the woman to cover up.
That is harrasment, and he has not right to do so even more after being advised.
He was a complete twat and I am so happy, not only did he get told to basically jog on, but now his stupidity was rightly told all over the web.
Its a shame she did not get his name to shame the idiot further.
This cafe owner is someone to be proud of. She did the right thing and stood up for women being harrassed by mindless idiots. She then told the story to the world as it should be so more people can help fight againt such backward idiots who think they can tell women feeding their children what to do.

It doesn't say he asked the woman to cover up actually, it just says that he spoke to her.

You think the owner should have named him so he could be harassed? You just destroyed your own argument.

If I had been the man, I would have just left straightaway and gone somewhere else. However, the fuss the owner made is absurd IMO.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't say he asked the woman to cover up actually, it just says that he spoke to her.

You think the owner should have named him so he could be harassed? You just destroyed your own argument.

If I had been the man, I would have just left straightaway and gone somewhere else. However, the fuss the owner made is absurd IMO.

Yes I am sure he spoke of the weather doh 

Its clear he asked her to cover up after saying the same to the owner in this regards.
Some things are very obvious, its not rocket science. 
PMSL
Yes He should be shamed, then he will learn, best way to learn is to shame him.
He could be harrassed does not mean he will, as others are not idiots like him.
So no argument destroyed at all, which it seems you are desperate for anything where you have had no case at all here

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Yes I am sure he spoke of the weather doh 

Its clear he asked her to cover up after saying the same to the owner in this regards.
Some things are very obvious, its not rocket science. 
PMSL
Yes He should be shamed, then he will learn, best way to learn is to shame him.
He could be harrassed does not mean he will, as others are not idiots like him.
So no argument destroyed at all, which it seems you are desperate for anything where you have had no case at all here

Well he would he harassed - you know he would. The internet is full of outraged people just waiting for a chance to harass someone.

He doesn't need to learn anything - except the law which the cafe had to keep to, and to avoid cafes where the owner throws a strop at the slightest thing.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I'm quite surprised a some people in here, they talk about equality then mock this man who was upset at what he saw, does the man not have a right to express his opinion on breastfeeding..

It seems not...

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I'm quite surprised a some people in here, they talk about equality then mock this man who was upset at what he saw, does the man not have a right to express his opinion on breastfeeding..

It seems not...

But hf, you have no idea what equality means.  What I see from you is it means whatever YOU want it to, as the mood suits you.  Right now, you are talking about your equality to judge others.  Next it will be your equality to punch someone in the nose.

Like a spoiled child, whenever it involves something you can't have, you are talking about how you have been deprived of your right to equality.

Equality is not a general right.  You act unequally when you decide who is your friend, or whom you will marry.  Where equality comes into play is in politics: it is accepted principle that in a modern democracy, no one is entitled to any more than the next person.  So politics is the only place where equality applies.

But then we've got to decide what equality is...is it mere distributive equality, or is it proportional equality?  If you fancy mere distributive equality, how do you justify the status quo?  You don't seem to complain about men without shirts, but you are apoplectic over women baring their breasts...aren't you treating people a bit unequally then?  Aren't you embracing proportional equality--the proportion between men and women?

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But hf, you have no idea what equality means.  What I see from you is it means whatever YOU want it to, as the mood suits you.  Right now, you are talking about your equality to judge others.  Next it will be your equality to punch someone in the nose.

Like a spoiled child, whenever it involves something you can't have, you are talking about how you have been deprived of your right to equality.

Equality is not a general right.  You act unequally when you decide who is your friend, or whom you will marry.  Where equality comes into play is in politics: it is accepted principle that in a modern democracy, no one is entitled to any more than the next person.  So politics is the only place where equality applies.

But then we've got to decide what equality is...is it mere distributive equality, or is it proportional equality?  If you fancy mere distributive equality, how do you justify the status quo?  You don't seem to complain about men without shirts, but you are apoplectic over women baring their breasts...aren't you treating people a bit unequally then?  Aren't you embracing proportional equality--the proportion between men and women?

I'm not treating anyone unfairly, everyone seems to be judging the man for what he thinks is wrong, it seems because his opinion differs from others it is not valid...

He may be in a minority but I Didn't think that mattered in this country normally the minority have the greatest say...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But hf, you have no idea what equality means.  What I see from you is it means whatever YOU want it to, as the mood suits you.  Right now, you are talking about your equality to judge others.  Next it will be your equality to punch someone in the nose.

Like a spoiled child, whenever it involves something you can't have, you are talking about how you have been deprived of your right to equality.

Equality is not a general right.  You act unequally when you decide who is your friend, or whom you will marry.  Where equality comes into play is in politics: it is accepted principle that in a modern democracy, no one is entitled to any more than the next person.  So politics is the only place where equality applies.

But then we've got to decide what equality is...is it mere distributive equality, or is it proportional equality?  If you fancy mere distributive equality, how do you justify the status quo?  You don't seem to complain about men without shirts, but you are apoplectic over women baring their breasts...aren't you treating people a bit unequally then?  Aren't you embracing proportional equality--the proportion between men and women?

I'm not treating anyone unfairly, everyone seems to be judging the man for what he thinks is wrong, it seems because his opinion differs from others it is not valid...

He may be in a minority but I Didn't think that mattered in this country normally the minority have the greatest say...

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not judging him. The cafe owner has the right to decide whether or not she wants him in her cafe of course, but I've said that she over-reacted by getting arsy.

There's a lot of talk about "intolerance" on this forum, but it seems that being able to see both sides of a situation is a bad thing to some of those who talk about it the most.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not judging him. The cafe owner has the right to decide whether or not she wants him in her cafe of course, but I've said that she over-reacted by getting arsy.

There's a lot of talk about "intolerance" on this forum, but it seems that being able to see both sides of a situation is a bad thing to some of those who talk about it the most.

You've just made the same argument as hf.  The 'intolerance' began with the actions of the man in reprimanding the nursing mother.  Whether we speak of 'intolerance' or 'judgment' the point is that one should put forth the standard for the intolerance or judging.

And just like hf, if you wish to jump in and be the surrogate, proffering the standard, I am willing to listen.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You've just made the same argument as hf.  The 'intolerance' began with the actions of the man in reprimanding the nursing mother.  Whether we speak of 'intolerance' or 'judgment' the point is that one should put forth the standard for the intolerance or judging.

And just like hf, if you wish to jump in and be the surrogate, proffering the standard, I am willing to listen.

The intolerance is in the rather abusive way this man has been spoken about. One cay say that one disagrees with his stance without judging him for his views.

risingsun wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Was going to make a point of my own but no, this!!!! We disagree with each other here, that's what keeps us popping popcorn. I'd much rather see people agree on some things and fight over others than see alliances and hypocrisy ...

Well, back to packing, but the thought of someone harassing Shady gave me a good giggle.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The intolerance is in the rather abusive way this man has been spoken about. One cay say that one disagrees with his stance without judging him for his views.

Once again, you are in denial: this whole episode started with the way the man treated someone else.  So let's start there, at the beginning.

Later, if you wish, we can get to the riff-raff issues about how people responded to him.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Now Didge and Ben are harassing Shady.

Wow, I truly apologize for ruffling such a delicate FUCKING flower ...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The intolerance is in the rather abusive way this man has been spoken about. One cay say that one disagrees with his stance without judging him for his views.

Once again, you are in denial: this whole episode started with the way the man treated someone else.  So let's start there, at the beginning.

Later, if you wish, we can get to the riff-raff issues about how people responded to him.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Once again, you are in denial: this whole episode started with the way the man treated someone else.  So let's start there, at the beginning.

Later, if you wish, we can get to the riff-raff issues about how people responded to him.

Which came first Quill? The banana or the egg?

It can be argued that the breast feeding lady initiated the harassment by exposing her breast.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Once again, you are in denial: this whole episode started with the way the man treated someone else.  So let's start there, at the beginning.

Later, if you wish, we can get to the riff-raff issues about how people responded to him.

Which came first Quill? The banana or the egg?

It can be argued that the breast feeding lady initiated the harassment by exposing her breast.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Shady wrote:

Which came first Quill? The banana or the egg?

It can be argued that the breast feeding lady initiated the harassment by exposing her breast.

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:

Which came first Quill? The banana or the egg?

It can be argued that the breast feeding lady initiated the harassment by exposing her breast.

Under the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984 it is illegal in Australia to discriminate against a person either directly or indirectly on the grounds of breastfeeding. Direct discrimination happens when a person treats someone less favourably than another person. For example, it is discriminatory for a waiter to decline to serve a patron who is breastfeeding. Indirect discrimination happens when an apparently neutral condition has the effect of disadvantaging a particular group, in this case women who are breastfeeding. For example, an employer may impose a requirement on all employees that they must not make any breaks for set periods during the day under any circumstances. Such a condition would particularly disadvantage women who need to express milk.
A useful publication from the Australian Human Rights Commission is Getting to Know the Sex Discrimination Act: A Guide for Young Women.While not directly mentioning breastfeeding, this publication does explain your rights and responsibilities under the Act.



What a fuckwit. 

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:








Under the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984 it is illegal in Australia to discriminate against a person either directly or indirectly on the grounds of breastfeeding. Direct discrimination happens when a person treats someone less favourably than another person. For example, it is discriminatory for a waiter to decline to serve a patron who is breastfeeding. Indirect discrimination happens when an apparently neutral condition has the effect of disadvantaging a particular group, in this case women who are breastfeeding. For example, an employer may impose a requirement on all employees that they must not make any breaks for set periods during the day under any circumstances. Such a condition would particularly disadvantage women who need to express milk.
A useful publication from the Australian Human Rights Commission is Getting to Know the Sex Discrimination Act: A Guide for Young Women.While not directly mentioning breastfeeding, this publication does explain your rights and responsibilities under the Act.



What a fuckwit. 

DIIIIIIIIIIICK HEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD!!

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:

DIIIIIIIIIIICK HEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD!!

Yeah you do qualify and you have earned the right to be one, especially after comparing excrement to breast milk.

What an idiot


HAR HAR HAR HARD ON Shity Shady

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Yeah you do qualify and you have earned the right to be one, especially after comparing excrement to breast milk.

What an idiot


HAR HAR HAR HARD ON Shity Shady

DIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD!!

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:


DIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD!!

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Once again, you are in denial: this whole episode started with the way the man treated someone else.  So let's start there, at the beginning.

Later, if you wish, we can get to the riff-raff issues about how people responded to him.

Which came first Quill? The banana or the egg?

It can be argued that the breast feeding lady initiated the harassment by exposing her breast.

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Brilliant post.

Raggamuffin wrote:Please add that missing comma to your signature Didge.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Which came first Quill? The banana or the egg?

It can be argued that the breast feeding lady initiated the harassment by exposing her breast.

Or...we could blame the nursing mother's father's sperm for making her a female.  Indeed, had that father had a proper vasectomy, as he should have, we would not have this poor man forced against his will, to have to approach her about breast feeding.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Please add that missing comma to your signature Didge.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

It's not just one post though - it's all of them.

Shady wrote:Must go, the news is on

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:Must go, the news is on

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I'm not treating anyone unfairly, everyone seems to be judging the man for what he thinks is wrong, it seems because his opinion differs from others it is not valid...

He may be in a minority but I Didn't think that mattered in this country normally the minority have the greatest say...

I'm not judging him. The cafe owner has the right to decide whether or not she wants him in her cafe of course, but I've said that she over-reacted by getting arsy.

There's a lot of talk about "intolerance" on this forum, but it seems that being able to see both sides of a situation is a bad thing to some of those who talk about it the most.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not judging him. The cafe owner has the right to decide whether or not she wants him in her cafe of course, but I've said that she over-reacted by getting arsy.

There's a lot of talk about "intolerance" on this forum, but it seems that being able to see both sides of a situation is a bad thing to some of those who talk about it the most.

if she had insisted he left and he was gay it would be all over the news...lol