Mollie - here's where you're going really wrong about rights and responsibilities and breastfeeding:
The people who do the feeding are the babies. The babies are messy, noisy, and occasionally smelly.
The people with the breasts are the mothers. Breasts have been for a few hundred years associated primarily with sex and the feeding function has been overlooked.
In order to exercise the right to breastfeed in public, it is necessary to (1) bring the baby with you, and (2) use the breasts, possibly exposing them.
So the law recognises that even though the babies can be loud, messy, not your usual patron of a theatre or a cinema or a restaurant or a church, etc., you can't breastfeed without them being present. Same goes for the breasts. The law recognises that a woman has the right to go to those establishments and to take her breastfeeding baby with her and to feed her baby in those places, and it says nothing about getting babysitters, or staying home to avoid annoying other people.
In fact, other people have to suck up (pardon me) the fact that babies and breasts are vital components of the activity, and that they will be present and most likely audible and on view in order for the breastfeeding to proceed.
The suggestion that women should be grateful to the general public for allowing them to feed their babies as nature intended outside of their own homes, and therefore should pander to the general public's immaturity and ignorance is appalling.
The hope of the legislation is that the public will become more relaxed about the presence of babies left, right and centre, and more willing to accept the feeding function of breasts, and that breastfeeding rates will therefore increase, with breastfeeding lasting all the way to the one year mark.
Clearly, there is a long way to go where eradication of ignorance and prejudice about breastfeeding and the necessary presence of babies are concerned.