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.

Definitely not unreasonable! Take your business somewhere else. It's hardly an intrusion to have a baby attached for ten minutes. Would hardly be noisy/disruptive.

[quote 3JsMa]@PatchItUp

maternityaction.org.uk/advice/breastfeeding-in-public-places/#:~:text=Service%20providers%20include%20most%20organisations,woman%20because%20she%20is%20breastfeeding.&text=Therefore%2C%20a%20cafe%20owner%20cannot,or%20refuse%20to%20serve%20you.
Here is good explanation that it was indeed a discrimination.[/quote]
I don't think that says what you think it says.

It is unlawful to discriminate against a woman because she is breastfeeding.

It is not unlawful for breastfeeding to be impossible because the business doesn't allow children.

@Spaghettipie1

Definitely not unreasonable! Take your business somewhere else. It's hardly an intrusion to have a baby attached for ten minutes. Would hardly be noisy/disruptive.

My DSis has lost a baby and is actively seeking out places where she isn't confronted by them. Aren't we allowed any child-free spaces now?

[quote 3JsMa]@PatchItUp

maternityaction.org.uk/advice/breastfeeding-in-public-places/#:~:text=Service%20providers%20include%20most%20organisations,woman%20because%20she%20is%20breastfeeding.&text=Therefore%2C%20a%20cafe%20owner%20cannot,or%20refuse%20to%20serve%20you.
Here is good explanation that it was indeed a discrimination.[/quote]
Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding.

Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms. Therefore, a cafe owner cannot ask you to stop breastfeeding, ask you to move or cover up or refuse to serve you.

It is not because she is breastfeeding though. Bottle fed babies would not be allowed. Sleeping babies would not be allowed. Awake babies who aren't feeding would not be allowed.

It is not against the law to prevent a woman breastfeeding where there are legitimate health and safety risks, for example, near to certain chemicals or radiation.

Chemicals? Like hair dye/ammonia/bleach/etc?

@sunshinesontv exactly this. I hope your DSis is doing okay. I was exactly the same, had I been sat having my hair done and a baby turned up next to me I would have been distraught and probably ended up leaving as I wouldn’t have been mentally prepared had I made provisions to not be around babies.

OP is perfectly entitled to have her hair cut, she is also perfectly entitled to have her baby with her - in a salon that accepts children.

And this...Equality Act 2010.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85008/business-quickstart.pdf
It is an actuall law that says the business has to allow to breastfeed on their premises (Page 4,paragraf 4)

Last week there was a thread about someone who insisted they had to be allowed to take their dog to a wedding reception …

YANBU.

The responses here are so unpleasant. There's real vitriol in the attack in some of them.

I'd have hoped we'd be much more supportive of women feeding thier babies and see it as something we accept as natural and happening in all sorts of places.

I say this as a women with now adult children who didn't breastfeed. So I have no skin in the game, but I'd always want to support a women who needed or wanted to be out living life and needed to feed her baby.

I'm sorry there's been so much nastiness here OP.
Mumsnet has changed so much from 15 years ago.

@3JsMa

And this...Equality Act 2010. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85008/business-quickstart.pdf It is an actuall law that says the business has to allow to breastfeed on their premises (Page 4,paragraf 4)

Yes, a breastfeeding woman can breastfeed pretty much anywhere.

Except she'll find it really fucking difficult if the business has exercised its legal right to make their premises child-free.

@slashlover

Do you know that OP had any of the chemicals applied?Do you think that hairdressers are using products that are a risk to anyone's health?

@3JsMa

And this...Equality Act 2010. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85008/business-quickstart.pdf It is an actuall law that says the business has to allow to breastfeed on their premises (Page 4,paragraf 4)

(Page 4, paragraph 3)

A business may ask a breastfeeding woman to leave their premises if the reason for this request is not due to her breastfeeding.

Such as bringing a person who is not allowed onto the property.

There are always people like this who think their wants trump everyone else. And absolutely will a crying baby be a distraction and having hair dye washed out, left on too long, or being applied whilst there is a baby being fed makes the mind boggle.

The hairdresser would probably feel they would have to stop and everyone gets delayed which perhaps doesn’t concern the OP.

Jesus Christ, not allowing ANY children on the premises is not the same as discriminating SPECIFICALLY against breastfeeding mothers.

I really dislike the attitude that if you’re breastfeeding a baby then this overrides a no child policy.

Plus as was pointed out upthread, if OP’s baby is having to be brought to her, it’s likely this is because the baby is hungry and won’t feed from the bottle. He wouldn’t exactly be a peaceful sleeping baby when brought in.

[quote 3JsMa]@slashlover

Do you know that OP had any of the chemicals applied?Do you think that hairdressers are using products that are a risk to anyone's health?[/quote]
OP was having a colour, there's a reason that hairdressers do patch tests. Because they can be dangerous chemicals.

Cam you not downgrade the appointment to just a cut, as it’s quicker. The colour can come later when you know your baby will take a bottle. It doesn’t need to happen at the same appointment.

Another YABU, I’m afraid. Nobody’s suggesting you’re not allowed to get a haircut when you’re breastfeeding, but if your baby feeds that regularly and won’t take a bottle, just get a dry cut/cut and blow dry or a mobile hairdresser to your house to do the colour.
Personally I wouldn’t have exposed mine to the chemicals- the smell in hairdresser can go for my throat at times, so can’t imagine it would be good for a 2 month old.

YABU. Your young baby is more important than a hairdresser's appointment. Get a hat.

@Thistles24

Another YABU, I’m afraid. Nobody’s suggesting you’re not allowed to get a haircut when you’re breastfeeding, but if your baby feeds that regularly and won’t take a bottle, just get a dry cut/cut and blow dry or a mobile hairdresser to your house to do the colour. Personally I wouldn’t have exposed mine to the chemicals- the smell in hairdresser can go for my throat at times, so can’t imagine it would be good for a 2 month old.

totally agree, and it can also flick off the brush and onto the cape.

If it was me, and I'm sure this has already been suggested, start expressing and feeding by bottle regularly while you are there.

Firstly this gives you a break from baby and let's the other parent be a parent, secondly is a backup if anything gawd forbid happens to you that puts your breasts out of action and baby's reach.

@Porridgeislife

I would be very unimpressed if someone brought their baby to the hairdresser during my appointment. YABU.

Why are there so many posts like this? How would a two month old having a feed ruin your experience? The baby will be handed over at the door, plugged on (so absolutely quiet) then handed back at the door as soon as it had fed.

I don't get how a session at the hairdressers would be ruined by someone's silent two-month-old.

It would be discrimination to prevent a baby who had already been allowed in from being fed on the premises. It isn't a breach of the Equality Act to refuse to allow certain age groups in, even when this disproportionately affects people with a protected characteristic. I understand that you might feel this is unfair, but because this is a private business, it isn't illegal.
And indeed a lot of age limits will disproportionately exclude people with protected characteristics, for example an over 75s event would be more likely to include non-white people and males, because the over 75 population is more female and white than the general population. But a private business would not be breaking the law to hold an over 75s event despite this, nor would they have any obligation to ensure males and non-white people have the same access to their events. Despite sex and race both being protected characteristics.

tier if you are a solicitor then presumably you are aware that age is in fact an EqA protected characteristic, and that your second point is practically the very definition of indirect discrimination?

Honestly, it's amateur hour on the thread.

@3JsMa people have explained this numerous times

@stackthecats are you a solicitor ?

@DragonMuff

I really dislike the attitude that if you’re breastfeeding a baby then this overrides a no child policy.

Plus as was pointed out upthread, if OP’s baby is having to be brought to her, it’s likely this is because the baby is hungry and won’t feed from the bottle. He wouldn’t exactly be a peaceful sleeping baby when brought in.

Do you also want to stand up for the rights of businesses to have a "no gays" or "no Muslims" policy? Or is that somehow different? Why?

FFS, I despair at how much women hate other women - the evidence is written all over this thread.