Angilion, are you being serious? If a restaurant had a rule that said all customers had to wear clothes, how many people would not go there? If a restaurant said no-one could wear clothes, how many would go there?
I don't know. I'm sure there's some market for a nude restaurant. How many customers each restaurant had would no doubt depend on a combination of factors. Cost, quality of food, etc.
How is this relevant to the subject?
Saying a women who is breast-feeding must cover up, when no-one else is being asked to do so is by definition "discriminatory". What part of the word do you not understand?
The part where you get to make up what it means and ignore other circumstances that meet a definition of the word.
As for saying no-one has compared breast-feeding to excretion or fornication etc. have you read this thread?
Yes. You clearly haven't, because it's been explained repeatedly and in laborious detail despite the fact that it's very obvious.
The point you are so determined to miss is that something being natural does not mean that should be illegal to restrict when and where it can be done (or even to ban it entirely). The point is a counter-argument to the extremely common usage of "nature" as a superhuman authority to command obedience, silence dissent and forbid evidence, reasoning and rational thought. Providing examples of natural things is not stating that those examples are the same in any way other than being natural. In fact, the point is usually the
lack of comparability.
Since the topic is obviously getting in the way of your understanding, I'll use something else to illustrate the difference:
Person A: Animals with 4 legs are dogs!
Person B: Many animals have 4 legs. Cats, for example. Or elephants.
That does not mean that person B is saying that cats and elephants are dogs. Just that they have 4 legs and that, therefore, having 4 legs is not what defines a cat.