Re: Conventions that don't suck?
- From: sethb@xxxxxxxxx (Seth Breidbart)
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:23:15 +0000 (UTC)
In article <s1as82pmdh5a0slnjl9cn1tbgfb0rr8v3o@xxxxxxx>,
Kevin J. Maroney <kjm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:40:40 GMT, whheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx (Wilson Heydt)
wrote:
California Civil Code Section 43.3
A mother may breast-feed her child in any location, public or
private, except the private home of another, where the mother and
child are authorized to be present.
My first reading was that this law bans breastfeeding in other
people's houses, but I suspect that's because I'm tired. In fact, it
looks like it's giving a homeowner the right to ban visitors from
breastfeeding if the owner chooses, even if the mother and child are
in the house legally. It's an odd right to carve out an exception for.
I think the general rule is that a homeowner has a lot more power over
the behavior in her home than other property owners have over their
property. That makes sense to me.
Seth
.
- References:
- Conventions that don't suck?
- From: Psycho Dave
- Re: Conventions that don't suck?
- From: "David G. Bell"
- Re: Conventions that don't suck?
- From: Wilson Heydt
- Re: Conventions that don't suck?
- From: Kevin J . Maroney
- Conventions that don't suck?
- Prev by Date: Re: go directly to jail
- Next by Date: Re: Conventions that don't suck?
- Previous by thread: Re: Conventions that don't suck?
- Next by thread: Re: Conventions that don't suck?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading