Opposing NSNSNS - just why?

Discussion in 'Bare It!' started by Astaroth, Dec 30, 2004.

  1. Astaroth

    Astaroth Banned

    I think back in the day I tried to start a discussion and it kind of burned down, heeh.

    Just why do you oppose NSNSNS so vehemently, me hearties? Admit it, you cannot seriously expect to pass it as discrimination. It's a rule that business owners impose upon their private property, and really, what business do you have to tell others what to do on their private property? Thinking in the same vein as you do, I should be able to walk into your backyards and houses and tell YOU to put your shoes ON while I'm around :)
     
  2. barefoot kid

    barefoot kid Member

    i personally have no problem with private establishments setting their own rules or dress codes for their customers. what i (and many other barefooters) hate is when they try to hide behind non-existent (phantom) laws to enforce those rules. many businesses (at least in the u.s. - i don't know about other countries) post a sign at the door saying: "by order of the health department, shirt and shoes are required". when being told and shown proof that no such law exists, *then* they finally say something like: "oh... uhh... well... it's our store policy!" so why can't they just say that outright from the beginning!? why do they have to lie and create myths about government laws prohibiting bare feet!? :mad:

    what if i had a sign on my door saying: "you are required to take off your shoes by government health regulations" :p
     
  3. Gymnos

    Gymnos Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Of course there’s a difference between the government telling a business what they can or cannot allow and trying to regulate what a person has to allow in her or his house. Your tired argument was used in the 1960s by racists to try to deny equal access to African-Americans at restaurants (ATLANTA MOTEL v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) and it was shown that the government can regulate restaurants and other businesses because they are commercial establishments. That’s different than an individual’s home, which is obviously not a commercial establishment. So your argument fails.

    http://tufte.net/jerod/law/outlines/cases/379US241.html

    (Note: I’m not trying to say the barefooters cause is the same as the Civil Rights movement. I’m simply showing how your argument concerning regulation is faulty)

    And like barefoot kid said most of the time the shop manager or worker will say there’s a law on the books requiring shoes when there isn’t. Time and time again barefooters contact the government to find there is no such law. The other is that there is a "store policy" restricting it. But usually with big corporations it’s the same story. We contact the corporate offices and are often told there is no such policy (BTW, Wal-Mart is a good example of this).
     
  4. NudistMike07

    NudistMike07 Member

    I think someone walking onto your property and telling the owner what they can and cannot wear is alot different than walking onto their property and wearing what you want to wear and expecting them to let you and not force you to wear something you dont want to.
     
  5. NudistMike07

    NudistMike07 Member

    I dont think store owners should be going around dictating dress code policy in their store and should just concentrate on meeting the customer's needs and making sure theyre comfortable and finding what theyre looking for. They dont do this when they waist time babbling about some useless dress policy.
     
  6. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey Senior Member

    Astaroth, I'm beginning to regard you simply as a troll.

    You seem prone to attempting to agitate those of us who don't like being dictated that we should wear shoes. We like going barefoot, and it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it negatively affects anyone around us -- therefore, there is no mandate for requiring barefooters to put on shoes. Companies are not at risk for liability, because if they post signs reminding patrons that they go barefoot at their own risk (which is common sense and would be deemed so in court, anyway), they would be off the hook if we got hurt. ("We told him it was risky and he did it anyway.") And the health departments are absolutely mum on the subject: if it were truly unhealthy for either the barefooter or for the public, they would surely regulate it and they do not.

    My guess is that you have some neurosis about bare feet, and you either wish you had the balls to go barefoot, but don't, and so you attempt to tear down anyone's reason for wishing to do so, or anyone's resolve to do so; OR, that you have unresolved issues about seeing people's bare feet. Maybe a fetish you're not comfortable with having, or something. Don't hate yourself, dude! It's not so bad to have a foot fetish! :p

    -Jeffrey
     
  7. Myranya

    Myranya Slytherin Girl

    The worst of all are the ones that claim there's a law. They're simply lies, which I hope I don't have to explain why they're wrong :) And these false signs do more than just telling us not to go barefoot in that one store; they also spread, because someone will see those signs and believe them, thinking a large company like, for example McD's, will know the laws. Thus, they will also put up a sign on their own store, even if they personally don't have a problem with bare feet!

    But even those not claiming a law are wrong. Yes, I *do* see them as discrimination. Why would discrimination only count for race, religion and sexual preference, and not for those things we chose like dress, hair color, tatoo's or piercings? I think if we only protect those who have no choice, it carries a strong implication that anyone who *can* conform, should do so, and we must only tolerate some because 'they can't help being different'. Sure, we can put on shoes when entering a store. However, please answer this question: if a black person *could* change their skin color at will, would it be okay to require him to do so in order to enter a store or restaurant?
     
  8. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey Senior Member

    EXCELLENT post! Thank you, Myranya. Very well said. :)

    -Jeffrey
     
  9. dhs

    dhs Senior Member

    You know I like going barefoot, maybe not as much as the rest of you, but even though I do, I've got no qualms not wearing shoes in someone's place of business.

    I guess I just don't understand the big fuss about it, why barefooters have such a problem putting on a set a sandles when they cruise through a 7-11.
     
  10. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    The companies may not be Liabile (Juries don't always exercise Good Common sense) but their Legal folks don't work for free.

    Guess who would ultimately pay the Legal fees?


    There's a saying in the Legal Community:
    'You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.'
     
  11. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey Senior Member

    Then they could countersue the person who sued because they got injured while barefoot.

    Or the judge, who applies the law (unlike some juries, although juries are instructed strictly as to how they are to apply the law) can dismiss a case on summary judgment, because it lacks merit -- as a case brought by an injured barefooter probably would.

    -Jeffrey
     
  12. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey Senior Member

    You have no qualms NOT wearing shoes in a place of business? That's exactly what we're defending.

    Perhaps you meant to say that you have no qualms capitulating to an irrational and needless prejudice, and putting on sandals to mollify a petty, ill-informed store manager?

    -Jeffrey
     
  13. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    What are the chances the original Plantiff would really have any attachable Assets? *L*
    True but the Company would have already incurred Legal Expenses (see above for Collections).
     
  14. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    When did Common Sense become passe?
     
  15. Myranya

    Myranya Slytherin Girl

    Two reasons, one ethical and one practical. Ethically, I've already explained in part in my other post; I *do* see it as discrimination. Other than a private home, or even a private club like Lions, a business opens up its doors to the public, and should not be able to pick and chose some people based on *anything* that does not harm others, just on their own whim. I know this isn't supported by the law, only those things like sex/religion/race are, but that's my opinion.

    Now practically, it's a hassle for two reasons. I don't drive, don't own a car, so I can't throw loads and loads of stuff in the trunk that I may need at some point in time. Sure, when I lived in the US and had my neat little pickup truck, it was easier in that respect; I didn't go barefoot yet but I had all sorts of stuff behind the seat, warm jacket, first aid kit, jack & other emergency stuff, plastic bags, maps, half my collections of cassette tapes... but now I get to carry everything I take, walking around, riding my bicycle (and no, you can't leave stuff on your bike around here, not if you want it to be there when you get back) and riding trains. So no, I don't particularly wanna lug around stuff I don't need. I carry footwear in the winter months when the weather may change -I *don't* want to get caught out some place when the trains don't run or when I get a flat tire and either get frostbite or need to call help- however I'm always glad when, come spring, I can toss them out again and make my load a little lighter.

    Second, while I don't have a problem with dirt on the soles of my feet, I like to keep it down there where it belongs. If I were to slip on shoes to go into a store, I'd then come out and pick them up, then put them in my bag where they are next to my groceries and/or lunch... Even if I wrap them in plastic it's still a hassle and I'd still have to handle them with my hands (which I don't usually rub over the floor in a store, even if I don't mind walking on that same floor with my bare feet) No thanks :)
    (Edit: this last reason isn't much of a problem even in winter 'cause fortunately I rarely, very rarely need those emergency shoes... They haven't been used since November 2003... and of course winter does carry some inconveniences anyhow, at least that's what I, as a summer person, consider all stuff like snow, ice, etc... that doesn't mean it's okay for people to add more inconveniences only because of a fake law or their silly personal prejudices :))
     
  16. NudistMike07

    NudistMike07 Member

    Makes me wonder if in the future when people can change their sex or skin color at will weither a store owner could legally deny service to someone unless they changed their sex or skin color just because their current status offended the owner. I would really love to know if they could do this. I beleive that if you allow a store owner to have mostly unlimited rights as to what they can allow in their store then theres no stopping them from denying service to someone unless they wear a bra or dont have shorts on or are wearing a suit or other really silly requirements.
     
  17. andcrs2

    andcrs2 Senior Member

    Most are Posting 'tongue n cheeck'?
     
  18. peacefuljeffrey

    peacefuljeffrey Senior Member

    God, Myranya, you are the most articulate, reasonable, rational woman I know! I'm pretty much in awe of you. :)

    -Jeffrey
     
  19. Myranya

    Myranya Slytherin Girl

    Thank you, Jeffrey :) I get a lot of practice -even here in the Netherlands, there may be no NSNSNS signs but bare feet are rare enough I get loads of questions, and then there's the forums of course :) The most important reason I usually try to explain calmly, even on other forums when the person I'm replying to is rabidly anti-barefoot and not likely to listen to reason, is that any forum and newsgroup has loads more lurkers than posters. So even if the poster isn't likely to listen -some rabid anti-barefooters on a Brittney Spears message board come to mind... most people here seem to be far more open-minded, nice community! ;) -I just know there are many people who are reading those messages who may pick up something...

    And I am *not* a saint; I'm not above admitting that when people have to admit defeat or when I make *them* lose *their* cool, I'm sitting here with a huge, wide, evil grin on my face... Hm, that reminds me, there seems to be yet another thread on some forum about Brittney Spears and negative barefoot comments on the Today Show (not only did they say it was gross she went into a public restroom barefoot but apparently they even recommended wearing footwear in hotel rooms!). I don't have a link but I may just see what Google can turn up... [​IMG]
     
  20. Astaroth

    Astaroth Banned

    I suppose you could classify me as a "rabid anti-barefooter" - I see going barefoot as fairly unsanitary, unsightly, unnecessarily rebellious and in some cases disrespectful. And (just as you would be) I feel glad when I see someone agreeing with my point of view, contrarian (to you) as it may be).

    But that's just me. I also *try* to stick to libertarian thinking as much as I can and I recognize that I have no business telling people how to live their lives and act on their private property... unless they are doing something illegal that is... I also recognize that people have no business telling *me* how to conduct myself on *my* property or personal space.

    And it fairly rubs me wrong to see the "rabid NSNSNS opposition" - if I ever owned a business, you could bet your bottom dollar I'd have a NSNSNS sign on the door. If you wouldn't like it, please do take your money elsewhere; but don't tell me to take the said sign down.

    It's a free country, is it not now?
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice