To expect an exception for bf baby?

[PatchItUp]

I have a 2 month old baby who is exclusively breastfed. Today I’ve got a hairdressers appointment for the first time in months and I’ve been really looking forward to it. I’m having cut and colour so may be a few hours. I’d expressed some milk and my DH is going to try giving him a bottle for the first time.

I mentioned when I arrived that this was the situation and that if he refused the bottle, my DH would bring the baby in to be fed then take him away again. I’ve done this in a different hairdressers with my older children before with no problem.

The receptionist said there was a no children policy and therefore I wouldn’t be able to bring him in. I was a bit shocked and reiterated that he is very young, exclusively bf and couldn’t be left hungry if he wouldn’t take the bottle. She said she would check with the hairdresser.

Hairdresser came and said much the same thing - no child policy, if we make an exception for you we have to make one for everyone and customers will complain. I said again that I understood a no child policy to prevent toddlers running around or making noise but this would be a small baby coming in for a feed and then out again. She said she would check with the manager.

Manager heard and said from across the room ‘there’s nowhere for you to go’. By this point all the customers are listening and I felt really conscious and upset about being argued with by three different members of staff. I was fairly sure that this was illegal refusal of services but not totally confident so I said ‘I don’t need to go anywhere, he’ll just be on my lap, have a feed then go again’. They all again said it’s company policy, they can’t make any exceptions. The manager said ‘what’s the percentage chance he’ll need to come in?’ And one of the women said ‘there’s a good chance he’ll just take the bottle so why not take the risk?’ I replied I couldn’t take the risk that he wouldn’t take it and would be left screaming and hungry and not allowed to come in.

Eventually the manager reluctantly agreed that he could be brought in if necessary but it was clear they were really unhappy about it and it’s soured the experience for me massively.

When I checked on my phone it seems they’re acting illegally in refusing services to a breastfeeding mother, although I guess they could argue it’s down to chemical hazards (although this wasn’t mentioned at any time as a reason).

So - was I being unreasonable? And would I be unreasonable to complain later on?

I know some people will say I should have just left but my hair is such a state!! And I’ve been really looking forward to having it cut and having a few hours to myself.

YABU. Massively. I didn't expect exceptions for my babies because they were breastfed and nor should you.

@DarceyDashwood

Perhaps consider a mobile hairdresser who comes to your house in future. YABU.

She doesn't have to.

She can go to her chosen hair salon, as she wishes.

If she would like a mobile hairdresser, fine. If she would like to go to her chosen salon, also fine.

@SohoOrigami sorry I still disagree and as a mother who b/f I would also take the cirrent situation and the hairdressers policy into mind as well , I mean as a pp has said this could be taken to far by people , you could insist in booking an adults only place and take your baby because the law says you can so think it needs to be sensible and as a mother also be sensible
Its not risk adverse to not drink a hot drink whilst b/f surely its basic safety

So I EBF and 17 month old DS is still BF. Fuck me I had so many rows about BF mothers rights. However I don't think this would apply to this situation. IMO you had 3 choices - 1) don't leave the baby until they were big enough to go that length of time without a feed (that doesn't mean until you stop BF)
2) give baby a bottle before to check if they'll take it and thus be prepared and confident (why couldn't you have tried once or twice beforehand? DH could have given baby some expressed milk in a bottle whilst you had a bath)
3) leave half way through, feed baby somewhere else and then return to be finished off.
Refusing services to a breastfeeding mother isn't really about a prolonged service like a hair cut. I wouldn't expect a cafe, pub, shop etc to kick you out for feeding but if you go somewhere you can't take a baby then you can't take the baby.

I'd think you were a complete ar**hole at this bit,

Eventually the manager reluctantly agreed that he could be brought in if necessary

I'd also tell you this too.

@stackthecats

Like other posters, I find this whole debate depressing on a site for mothers where so many women on the thread are actually judging someone for a protection that is theirs by law. It's regressive and anti-women. The Equality Act is the same act that defines what is unlawful discrimination against people on the basis of sex, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation and other protected characteristics.

Are you all saying the Equality Act is wrong? You'd be saying the same thing to someone who wasn't allowed in a hairdressers because of being black, disabled, Muslim, gay? (And before you start, different kinds of exemptions apply to different protected characteristics.) Or is it just breast-feeding and maternity being included that you don't like? You're keen on anti-discrimination law as long as it follows your opinion?

Would be interesting to see the same posters if someone posted this same AIBU about disabled access (though there was already on this thread an "I'm disabled and I only go to places that provide services for me" post. Great for you, but not every disabled person feels the same).

It's the basic point that if something is protected by law then a business has to follow the law. No ifs or buts or "well people want their relaxation time and it's their policy!" Policies can't override the law. As a business or service provider you don't get to choose that you're complying with the EqA10 on the things you agree with but not the ones you don't, whether it's not letting gay people in or having a "Christians only" policy or whatever. If you don't want to comply with the law you don't run a business, end of.

It's depressing to see the way women on here are policing other women's legal rights and spouting nonsense about what is allowed, just because they want the law to agree with them when it doesn't.

Absolutely brilliant post 👏👏👏 Thank you Stack

@1Morewineplease

Makes me wonder where this breastfeeding whenever, wherever will end. Maybe dentists will have to stop, mid procedure, to accommodate a breast fed baby. Maybe the cashier at the supermarket must stop for a quick latch on. Maybe the post office cashier should hang on while you latch your baby on. Maybe your baby should be allowed to step out of the witness box , while you're giving evidence in court, so that you can feed your child.

I don't know, how on Earth did we ever cope?

I know! I know!

Because maternity leave exists meaning women don’t have to stop work in order to breastfeed their babies.

That’s how

@Iminaglasscaseofemotion

The child I'd not allowed in the salon in the first place. I couldn't go out for a drink and get my dp to pop in with the baby so I can feed her, because children aren't allowed after a certain time. I couldn't go to a childfree spa and get dp to bring her down for a feed poolside because she won't take a bottle for him. No children, means no children, not, no children unless you want to being them in for a feed.

Well actually, no children means no children, unless you need to breastfeed, which you are entitled to do.

This thread is so sad. A parent just wanting to breastfeed a newborn baby in a hairdressers, and the venom she receives in response is astonishing.

[quote worriedatthemoment]@stackthecats but we are all also allowed different opinions and their is a choice for the op and also they did actually agree in the end
[/quote]
Exactly.

A choice. And the OP chose to attend the hair salon & make provisions for the possibility of needing to feed her small baby.

She gets to choose this. Not you. Not the hair salon.

@EarringsandLipstick we all know that the law is on her side , but we can also disagree as well and see other options
There are lots of covid laws at the moment plenty of us have discussions about what we agree or disagree with .
Just because a law exsists doesn't mean some of us can't see it from the other aide

@1Morewineplease

Makes me wonder where this breastfeeding whenever, wherever will end. Maybe dentists will have to stop, mid procedure, to accommodate a breast fed baby. Maybe the cashier at the supermarket must stop for a quick latch on. Maybe the post office cashier should hang on while you latch your baby on. Maybe your baby should be allowed to step out of the witness box , while you're giving evidence in court, so that you can feed your child.

I don't know, how on Earth did we ever cope?

I’d be so impressed to see a baby in a witness box

YABU. I'm baffled why you think a young, hungry baby is unlikely to disturb other people... Very likely to be screaming... As someone who exclusively breastfed for almost two years, you're being completely unreasonable to think that breastfeeding means you're allowed to break the no children rule. Why would you think breastfeeding is an exception? (Also, 1000000% not illegal, do you think nightclubs and casinos have to let your baby in too?)

You can disagree with the law worried but the fact you don’t like the fact that law exists doesn’t stop it from being a law.

@Landofthefree

YABU. Get a mobile hairdresser to come to you if your baby can’t be left.

Why? Why should she? You don't get to tell a breast feeding mother to stay at home instead of exercising a legislatively supported freedom of choice.

@Lemonelderflower at which point did I say I could

Thanks for all the viewpoints. Even the one that said my baby would have to learn to like a bottle if I dropped dead! I hope so, rather than starve, but as I’m not dead, just having my hair done, I am able to be a bit more accommodating to his needs.

Totally appreciate that many of you want your child free time uninterrupted, and have waited a long time for a hair cut too. I just do feel that a tiny breastfed baby is not the same as a toddler running around, and yes, I can be confident it would only have taken 15 minutes, and no, I wouldn’t expect the hairdresser to stop what they were doing, and yes, I am willing to take the risk of my baby eating my hair, because it’s non existent. For those of you lambasting me for not choosing a salon with a child friendly policy, I didn’t know they had a policy against children when I booked. In fact the manager is from my old salon where they did allow babies in. Had I known, I would have spoken to them before booking. I know lots of you are worried about my baby being blinded or stabbed by falling scissors or suffocated by fumes or ingesting hair. I’m not worried about any of those things, maybe that makes me too relaxed, I’m ok with it though. In the event, he wasn’t put it any danger as he took the bottle, so...phew.

I would just like to add that it’s been a rough year for all of us mental health wise and certainly it’s been no picnic being pregnant and giving birth while looking after my other children and working during the hardest year of my life, I know this is the same for many of us. But it’s worth bearing in mind that I am just a normal person wanting to have my hair done and also feed my baby before you call me

Entitled
Ignorant
Selfish
Self obsessed
Karen
Ridiculous
PFB
Thinking the world revolves around me
Etc etc etc. I just wanted to get my hair done whilst also being a parent to a small baby. Yes, next time I will check the policy. Or book a mobile hairdresser. Or practice more with the bottle. All fair points. But maybe you don’t need to speak to me like shit for just asking if it was unreasonable to expect the salon to comply with their legal obligation not to refuse me service because I’m breastfeeding, at a time when it’s particularly hard to be a new mother.

It does seem some people just hate any ‘special treatment’ afforded to people who are breastfeeding - it’s not because I think I’m special. It’s because I’m giving my child food out of my body and that makes life more difficult in some aspects. I don’t think I’m better than anyone else I’m just temporarily in a different situation.

I’ll leave this here as I know I’ll get loads more grief about being a special snowflake but legally they were in the wrong even if morally you feel they weren’t. Thanks all.

@MeadowsInSunshine Well actually, no children means no children, unless you need to breastfeed, which you are entitled to do.
No children means no children. Why would you think breastfeeding entitles you to break that rule?! Genuinely curious why you think breastfeeding changes the rule?

On a more serious note though, breastfeeding whenever and wherever should never end. It should always be accommodated and accepted. As it is in many places around the world. Because it’s normal and natural to respond to your child. Bottle feeding the same.

You get it cut in the window between feeds. If that means you can't go for a long colour session, so be it for the next few months. You can't expect life to carry on as it was? Go when you have a long enough window.**

What am I reading?

'You can't expect life to carry on as it was'

A mother doesn't lose her personality, preferences or rights. She can have whatever expectations she pleases. She can make choices that work for her, subject to situations being practical for her, supported by legislative rights.

The number of people fulminating about the Equality Act without understanding it is rather worrying. As a solicitor, I'm frequently aghast at the incorrect legal advice given on here, but this seems to be a particularly badly understood area.

It is not unlawful to deny entry or services to a breastfeeding woman, provided you aren't doing it because she's breastfeeding. Being a breastfeeding mother does not mean a private business loses the right to impose age restrictions that exclude you and/or baby. Breastfeeding doesn't give you any rights you wouldn't have if not breastfeeding, it merely prevents you from losing any because you're doing it. This means a breastfeeding mother can absolutely be denied service and entry and it still be legal. It will depend on the reason.

The effect of this is that the salon are not in breach of the Equality Act if they refuse to allow any babies in and thus do not accommodate a breastfeeding mother. If however they would allow in a formula fed baby, they are, because then it would be about the breastfeeding.

It really is quite a minimal duty the law imposes wrt bf rights, which is why it's so depressing that sometimes businesses fail to even achieve this. They aren't obligated to anything to facilitate bf, they can have policies that would exclude all breastfeeding mothers and babies such as being only over 65s, male only, no under 18s etc.

The situation is different from the duty of employers towards employees and also public bodies, both of which I've seen mentioned. It also differs from protected characteristics like race, because it's not a breach of the Equality Act to deny service on the grounds of age.

On the issue of whether they're being dicks, that one's a matter of opinion.

Does that mean a breast fed baby can go but they are allowed to ban bottle fed babies.

No.

[quote SonnyWinds]**@MeadowsInSunshine* Well actually, no children means no children, unless you need to breastfeed, which you are entitled to do.*
No children means no children. Why would you think breastfeeding entitles you to break that rule?! Genuinely curious why you think breastfeeding changes the rule?[/quote]
Little things, equality, law, discrimination ... all covered in the thread

OP if I was MNHQ I would ban anyone who used that horrible k phrase. And to use it to a woman who wants to feed her baby is reprehensible.

@Lemonelderflower I managed to BF and also get my haircut without taking a baby and also being understanding of business situations , just because you can doesn't always mean you should and when people take it to far , which they will then things will be changed again.
Imagine if hair dye oR something was dropped on baby then the business would be sued for that , so I feel sorry for small businesses sometimes as they can't often make people sign waivers etc and have to accommodate for some things but then could be in trouble for it
Personally I wouldn't take a young baby in with chemicals etc around

Tier I’m sorry but that is not the case.

The discrimination applies to the mother and not the child.

My guess is not long, so putting it into perspective it would hardly be an emergency if the baby refused the bottle.

Have you ever looked after a tiny baby who needs feeding? After about 5 minutes of a baby crying to be fed, you'll be willing to cut off all your limbs to stop the crying.

Babies cry when they need to be fed. They keep crying till they are. It would be utterly cruel to expect a tiny baby to wait.