I think, however, that those who take offense should be the party required to make changes ~ either in their seating arrangement, their patronage of the establishment, or, at the very least their sensitivities.
If we are to go through life trying to discern any action we might take that might cause offense, are we truly living our lives? Or are they being lived by others?
I was trying to touch on this with Neocon in my earlier posting. He and I have talked about it in PMs. It has to do with courtesy, a delicate balance of our own sensibilities and those of others. For example, I have no difficulty with a woman's nursing her child in public; my mother did. Because of my mother, I am aware of a different set of sensibilities. If I were a nursing mother, I'd try to be discreet about feeding my child in public. I'd look for a private area and if one were not available, I'd still try to keep it private with a shawl or some such. If I couldn't keep it private for some reason, I'd expect other people to understand the impossibility and to behave with equal courtesy.
It's a matter of awareness of other people, this notion of courtesy. I'd expect their understanding as a matter of courtesy, which is why I have trouble with legislating standards, as I indicated to brees. In a society that values courtesy rather than squawking about rights, there is respect for differences and for the exigencies of particular moments.
What is acceptable and comfortable in one group of people is not in another. By legislating standards, we surrender our sensitivity to one another and we let our lives be determined by others, to rephrase what you said.
A caveat: I am libertarian and so am very leery of any legislated standards. I prefer the work of understanding other people to having it done for me. If I were a nursing mother, I'd have no problem feeding my baby in the company of some of my friends; OTOH, if Neocon and his family were visiting with me, I'd be as discreet as possible because I am aware that his sensibilities are not mine. |
