Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To expect an exception for bf baby?

999 replies

PatchItUp · 05/05/2021 14:41

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.

OP posts:
stackthecats · 05/05/2021 23:05

[quote worriedatthemoment]@stackthecats are you a solicitor ? [/quote]
Legal academic & barrister in employment/equalities law.

worriedatthemoment · 05/05/2021 23:05

@stackthecats no children is not the same as your example as you well know
Its not about hating women its just what some are turning it in to ,

worriedatthemoment · 05/05/2021 23:06

@stackthecats so are you saying they legally could not refuse despite having a no child policy and that even nightclubs etc have to allow a baby into be breastfed

jakeyboy1 · 05/05/2021 23:07

1 - do hygiene rules not trump the EA? Eg as with in swimming pools the no eating rule also applies to BF.

2 - for all you know they've had babies projectile vomit after a feed and this has put them off. We al l know that happens and in the current climate would be particularly challenging.

DragonMuff · 05/05/2021 23:09

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

I honestly don’t understand how on a parenting site, so many people can think that because a baby is young and breastfeeding he or she won’t be disruptive. Sometimes young babies are quiet and no bother at all. Other times, not so much.

Jennylou88 · 05/05/2021 23:10

I can't believe so many people have said YABU! You have a tiny baby!! Of course they should be able to have a quick feed and then go if needed. This was fine with my hairdresser when my little one was so young!

Dustyhedge · 05/05/2021 23:11

I think you were unreasonable as well. I remember getting a cut while my husband pushed the buggy outside. That was about an hour and was fine. If you booked something knowing it was going to be much longer I think you were unreasonable. Also I don’t believe the baby would just be silent for 15 mins. Both of mine if hungry would have been crying. You’d disturb the other customers who had chosen to go to a child free salon while faffing with the door, getting you and baby settled etc. Just because you can take a baby to certain places doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

worriedatthemoment · 05/05/2021 23:11

@stackthecats i think the poster was stating its not illegal to ban certain ages or allow only over 60's events or women only events , despite the fact that may even mean others are left out
The salon is no children others are not , therefore choice
Maybe some people don't like children , maybe someone has lost a child and is avoiding places with children .
Maybe a place has had a bad experience with someones children before and decided that its easier to have a blanket ban

worriedatthemoment · 05/05/2021 23:12

@Jennylou88 was your hairdressers a no child policy hairdresser though ?

DADZ · 05/05/2021 23:12

MY GOD! thats just so terrible. I bet they would treat even the queen rudely.
ANd I thought I had problems cuz my daughter was born blind in one eye. Silly me.

slashlover · 05/05/2021 23:12

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?

So how are Saga holidays (over 50s) allowed to operate? How is Sunlife over 50s plan not illegal if I can't get it due to age?

UnlimitedChipsAndSalsa · 05/05/2021 23:13

YABU. They have a no child policy. Your baby is a child.

CrazyCatLazy · 05/05/2021 23:13

[quote worriedatthemoment]@stackthecats so are you saying they legally could not refuse despite having a no child policy and that even nightclubs etc have to allow a baby into be breastfed [/quote]
I’m wondering this, so is it not possible to have a child free environment anywhere? Hairdressers, cafe, pub, cinema, spa?
I’m not versed at all but I found this

To expect an exception for bf baby?
DragonMuff · 05/05/2021 23:14

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

If you genuinely are a barrister (as I am), then I am appalled at your lack of critical thought if you equate thinking that no child policies can be appropriate in some circumstances with “hating women”.

And you will also be aware that there is no comparison between a “no Muslim” policy and a no child policy, because section 13(2) provides for justification in the case of direct age discrimination, whereas there is no such exemption for religion and belief.

tomatotin · 05/05/2021 23:17

When I pay £200 for an opera ticket at Covent Garden I'd be livid if it were ruined by a baby however it's fed. That does not make me a woman hater. I've bf 3 myself. Fortunately children under 5 are not allowed. @stackthecats are you seriously saying the Royal Opera House is acting illegally?

Airyfairymarybeary · 05/05/2021 23:17

Yanbu
This is the wrong place to ask. Try a breastfeeding Facebook group.
99% of mumsnetters are bottle feeders so wouldn’t understand.

DragonMuff · 05/05/2021 23:17

@slashlover

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?

So how are Saga holidays (over 50s) allowed to operate? How is Sunlife over 50s plan not illegal if I can't get it due to age?

There are various exemptions/justifications for age discrimination. There is also the possibility to justify indirect discrimination on any grounds. I assume stackthecats knows this if he or she genuinely is a barrister who practice in discrimination so not sure why this wasn’t mentioned in their post.
Ohdobequiet · 05/05/2021 23:37

Some right misery guts out in force. Op, ywnbu.

fiheka · 05/05/2021 23:47

I have been checking various sites to see what the legal position is and it seems unclear. Because everything talks about babies already on the premises and yes it is illegal then to stop a baby or child from being breastfed.
But I can't believe that it is a legal right to feed a baby anywhere including places that ban children. Otherwise, you could take babies into nightclubs, casinos, sex clubs and breastfeed.

Sunshinelover2 · 05/05/2021 23:47

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

DragonMuff · 05/05/2021 23:50

@tomatotin

When I pay £200 for an opera ticket at Covent Garden I'd be livid if it were ruined by a baby however it's fed. That does not make me a woman hater. I've bf 3 myself. Fortunately children under 5 are not allowed. *@stackthecats* are you seriously saying the Royal Opera House is acting illegally?
Interested to see if *@stackthecats* comes back to the thread to answer queries like this.

They definitely aren’t acting illegally tomatotin, as you’ll already be aware - section 28(1) equality act excludes under 18s from protection from age discrimination when it comes to provision of services.

I’m dismayed a fellow barrister has therefore likened a “no child” policy to a “no Muslim” policy and queried how they’re different.

fiheka · 05/05/2021 23:53

If stackthecats was right, reduced prices for children would be illegal. Because there is no real justification for giving an 11-year-old a reduced price for example, and making a 12-year-old pay more. There would also be no legal reason to restrict children's meals to children. Many pubs make no money on their cheap children's meals.

stackthecats · 05/05/2021 23:55

[quote worriedatthemoment]@stackthecats so are you saying they legally could not refuse despite having a no child policy and that even nightclubs etc have to allow a baby into be breastfed [/quote]
Yes -- think of it this way. As a business you might have a policy of no animals in your shop.

But you can't argue that you will only provide a service to a disabled person (protected characteristic) if they are without their service animal. You might want to argue you weren't discriminating against, say, a blind person because they were disabled, but that because you had a "no dogs in the shop" policy that covered all dogs. But you'd still be discriminating against them on the grounds of their protected characteristic.

Sorry DD has come in and said she is feeling sick so I anticipate an imminent vom...

maddening · 05/05/2021 23:55

Book a mobile hairdresser to come to your house

stackthecats · 05/05/2021 23:57

@fiheka

If stackthecats was right, reduced prices for children would be illegal. Because there is no real justification for giving an 11-year-old a reduced price for example, and making a 12-year-old pay more. There would also be no legal reason to restrict children's meals to children. Many pubs make no money on their cheap children's meals.
No, there are exemptions to the age characteristic that don't exist for all charcteristics. Each characteristic has a different set of exemptions - the ones for age and sex are not the same as for race and disability, for example.