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.

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

I certainly didn't: I'm amazed you read my point so badly.

@stackthecats okay makes sense to have exemptions. But I am amazed if it really is legal to take a baby anywhere if you are breastfeeding. Because there are lots of places that are not suitable for babies, but there are always individuals that would still take a baby there.

@Earringsandlipstick You aren't looking for any special treatment or to inconvenience anyone. It will be quick, manageable & not affect anyone.

Asking for special treatment is EXACTLY what OP is doing. There is a no child policy at this business that applies to all customers. The OP wants to bring in her child. The age of the child, duration of the child's visit, and the way the child is fed has no effect on the policy.

@DragonMuff

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.

I've already pointed out that there are exemptions for age: and you're being disingenuous here, because it isn't the policy itself that's the issue, and I have not argued that anywhere at all -- because it isn't the child that's the possessor of the protected characteristic. If a business put up a sign saying "no breastfeeding" then that yes would be equivalent in relation to a protected characteristic! But you presumably know that perfectly well. A business wouldn't put up a sign saying "no breastfeeding here"; but if they say a 2m old baby can't be fed on the premises because of a "no child policy", then the effect is the same.

YABU and ridiculous. Anyway I thought it’s advisable not to have your hair coloured when bf. Chemicals and all that.

Sorry, that's a bit garbled there -- I'm very tired and expecting a kid to be sick all over me any minute. What I mean is that if the effect of a policy is to discriminate against a protected characteristic, then you can't argue that the policy itself protects you against a charge of discrimination (unless there is a relevant exemption).

@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)

No it isn’t an actual law. Read the example of Anne Bob and Chris on the same page. OP isn’t being discriminated against for breastfeeding. There’s a no child policy. By your argument she should be allowed to breastfeed in a strip club or on a building site. Ridiculous.

@stackthecats

I said:

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

You said:

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?

I didn’t read your post badly. I referenced a no child policy and you asked how it was different to a no Muslim policy. It was quite clear.

Dragon I was referring to the whole statement quoted- that breastfeeding should not override a no child policy (which is basically saying a "no breastfeeding" policy). But I agree that I worded that in a way that is unclear. The equivalent is a "no breastfeeding" policy - which is exactly what the effect is here. Compare the statement "I really dislike this attitude that if you're gay then this overrides the right of a shop to serve who they wish." Or: "I really dislike this attitude that if you're Muslim this overrides the right of a shop to serve only Christians."

@stackthecats so are you saying a woman can legally breastfeed in a nightclub or a sex club or a gig?

It isn't unlawful for a hairdresser (or similar service) to have a child-free policy though, is it?

That is the core issue.

You appear to be trying to argue that any service that does not admit children is discriminating against women by indirectly discriminating against breastfeeding women. Could you please point us to any basis for this in UK law? Because it's hard to take seriously someone who claims to be an expert in the field, but who hasn't cited any reference that can't be found in 30 seconds on Google.

Get a mobile hair dresser. They come to your house and you can do what you like whilst he is still breastfed. I think it's unfair on those other customers who are paying hundreds for a bit of peace as well. They won't know whether baby will fuss on the boob or not. To be fair I have exactly done that Pre covid when my babies were tiny but then quickly cottoned onto mobile hairdressers (which by the way spend more time doing foils which look much more natural) and are much much cheaper. Under £100 with full head and cut! Don't bother with salons since and don't miss the "experience" and forced chatter either. My mobile hair dresser and I are now friends (nearly 10 yrs on and we talk about all sorts without prying ears) so it's actually meaningful conversation! Good luck. Don't waste your energy complaining, just get a mobile hair dresser! Xx

And it would not only apply to babies. The breastfeeding legislation covers any child being breastfed. So you are saying a mother could legally take a 7 year old to a nightclub as long as they breastfeed them in the club?

Surely it's much worse to imply muslims are child like, or to compare them to children..? If muslim children weren't allowed where other children are, then the point might be relevant (and not offensive).

Children aren't allowed in certain places, because they aren't safe or appropriate places, for children to be. Like how in the maternity ward I was in, only children of new mothers were allowed to visit, to keep the place a bit less chaotic.

@fiheka

And it would not only apply to babies. The breastfeeding legislation covers any child being breastfed. So you are saying a mother could legally take a 7 year old to a nightclub as long as they breastfeed them in the club?

I'm not aware that this has been tested, but it would be interesting to see the arguments! Presumably it's only a matter of time.

I've not read all the comments but I'm sure you are allowed to breast feed in public so don't think they are allowed to refuse you? It's protected under the equality act 2010 & they cannot deny you service because you are breast feeding.

Also people saying it's not discrimination because all kids are banned, not really the point. The point is the customer is female & is at a disadvantage because of it and is protected for 26 weeks after birth so yes it would be sex discrimination.

Sources

maternityaction.org.uk/advice/breastfeeding-in-public-places/

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination/

I'm not aware that this has been tested, but it would be interesting to see the arguments! Presumably it's only a matter of time

Not really, because it is perfectly lawful for a night club to have a child-free policy - indeed, it is likely to be a requirement of their licence. As I would expect a 'legal academic and barrister' to know. Day 2 of your pupillage, is it?

I've already pointed out that there are exemptions for age: and you're being disingenuous here, because it isn't the policy itself that's the issue, and I have not argued that anywhere at all -- because it isn't the child that's the possessor of the protected characteristic. If a business put up a sign saying "no breastfeeding" then that yes would be equivalent in relation to a protected characteristic! But you presumably know that perfectly well. A business wouldn't put up a sign saying "no breastfeeding here"; but if they say a 2m old baby can't be fed on the premises because of a "no child policy", then the effect is the same

I’m confused because no one has suggested they should be allowed to put up a sign saying “no breastfeeding”. Least of all me. Not allowing children at all and allowing children but not allowing breastfed children to be breastfed on site is not the same thing.

If you’re putting it as an indirect discrimination argument that not allowing children puts breastfeeding women at a particular disadvantage, then this is capable of being justified as being a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and it would be. It would effectively evade the U18 exemption from age discrimination as regards providing services if issues pertaining to childcare rendered no child policies unlawful because they disproportionately impact women. It wouldn’t just be breastfeeding mothers who could argue this. For example, parents of children of all ages would be less able to attend hair appointments, and they are disproportionately women.

Some of the shit on here honestly.
Why should the baby have to take a bottle? It's breastfed! Small babies need regular feeds,

Anyone who's got an issue with a mum feeding a tiny baby because it's invading "their" time needs to get a grip, YOU are the problem.
There is also legislation in place to protect bf mums from this sort of crap.
When are we going to start supporting our new mums in the country instead of making a really hard road a damn sight harder

"Also people saying it's not discrimination because all kids are banned, not really the point. "

It's entirely the point.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I'm not aware that this has been tested, but it would be interesting to see the arguments! Presumably it's only a matter of time

Not really, because it is perfectly lawful for a night club to have a child-free policy - indeed, it is likely to be a requirement of their licence. As I would expect a 'legal academic and barrister' to know. Day 2 of your pupillage, is it?

sigh

Sigh away @stackthecats - it's just what I expect from posters who can't stand up their arguments.

If you come on a thread, claim to be an expert in the field of law being discussed, and then show a lack of understanding of that law, you should expect to be challenged. If you were actually what you claimed, you would have the citations to prove your points. You don't because they don't exist.

@Airyfairymarybeary

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

No. I was a breast feeder for 11 months. But I wasnt so rude as to assume that my child was welcome in ALL venues/locations, regardless of suitability.