How was that a valid point?
Genitals are 'obscene' for a reason. They're purely sexual parts. There's nothing utilitarian or otherwise non sexual about testicles or a vagina. They're there for one obvious reason. (I don't agree with this viewpoint. I think unless you're engaging in actual sexual behaviour, nakedness is not obscene. But society thinks differently.)
Breasts are not purely sexual parts. They're there for a functional reason; to feed children.
Which matters more? The fact that we attach CONNOTATIONS to breasts (sexuality) or the fact that a REAL CHILD NEEDS FEEDING?
A penis or anus is not a purely sexual body part, right? And I also don't believe that nakedness, in and of itself, is "obscene". But many people believe that it is, which is why I consider EF's point to be valid.
As much as we may disagree with this attitude, it's what they believe and these people shop at stores, vote, etc. That's why I don't think that businesses should be forced to allow public breastfeeding. In the name of property rights, shouldn't a business owner at least be allowed to choose which segment of society he or she is going to offend?