Sure... As for the rest, I never said there weren't places that asked you to remove your footwear... many different places do for various reasons... It just that snow outside isnt one of them... As for the topic itself of laws, and whether or not your shoes are dirtier... it has little to do with dirty feet... It is a liability issue... If you walk barefoot into someone's place of business, and there is not sign saying footwear is required and you step on something... BY LAW, the business is responsible and can now be sued. If you were to look at the reasons those laws exist... I am almost positive you will find it is because sometime in the past, someone walked barefoot into a place of business, cut their foot or stepped on something, sued the company and won... Why would a business owner take that chance?
Well, they admit people who wear clumsy high heels or foam flip-flops that have less traction than bare feet and are more prone to slipping on a puddle and causing a broken nose, tailbone, or God knows what else. Bare feet are safe compared to those particular options. I think it would be interesting to look into case law on bare feet in businesses. I'm not sure if someone has brought a liability suit because they injured their feet. However, by that same token, if someone does cut his or her bare foot in the business, that bodes very badly for people who have seeing-eye dogs. The dogs most likely don't have shoes, and are prone to injury just like people are. So if a business wants to be consistent, it should require stable shoes with good traction for all species to completely avoid liability. Is that absurd? Absolutely. But that's the direction you head toward when you get into liability! Besides, what's so hard about putting up a sign that says "Barefoot customers are unshod at their own risk"?
Well, because its just easier to put up a sign that says no shoes no service... As for the liability issue, that is exactly where it is heading... I'll give you an example not related to barefeet but that demonstrates the point... I used to know a lot of people who made extra money clearing sidewalks and driveways and shit (as a business)... Not anymore... It seems that due to the number of 'slip and fall' court cases that were brought against companies who cleared snow, insurance companies raised their rates for snow clearing companies... to the point that most non-specialized companies couldn't afford to do it anymore. Examine the insurance policies that companies operate under before you assume they are saying things like No Shoes, just to be asses... If they don't have insurance, they dont have a business... Would you give up your lifelong investment into a business in order to please a few people who want to be barefoot? Or, would you put up a sign that said, No shoes, no service? Something else to keep in mind... If a business had a majority of customers who wanted to be barefoot... they would let them come in barefoot... The fact that they don't suggests that there are more customers who want to wear shoes...
Oh, I get you 100% percent there. There are even liability laws that state home owners can be sued if somebody breaks in to their vacant house and gets hurt. Do I think it's right? Hell no. We need objectivity in rulings, not blanket laws. Not if there is a law saying the business can't!
during Salazar's regime it was forbidden going barefoot in public, in Portugal, I've been told. Someone heard about that?
How enforceable are no shoes no service policies in essentially public places such as malls? Not the individual shops, but the common areas.
Well first off, malls are not public places... they are places of business just like an individual shop is... Their business is renting out retail space. If the owners of the mall say there are no barefeet allowed in th e mall, it is as enforceable as any other business saying so. As for truly public places, then that falls to the municipality... if there are bylaws that ban barefeet, then it is against the law and also 100% enforceable...
I wonder if anyone in this town would be willing to challenge the town's ordinance at the state level. From the document obtained by members of the SBL, it appears that Massachusetts has no laws on the books about such restrictions. http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/MA2002.pdf That letter does specify that towns and municipalities may have such ordinances, but if there's enough stink raised that a town is exhibiting a discriminatory practice not in line with the state's position, they might exert pressure to lift such a ban. Regarding yoga studios, there would be almost no risks associated with being barefoot. Those studios generally have smooth floors and it's all open space. You would stand a far greater chance of injuring yourself trying to get into difficult poses, or holding poses too long, etc. I can't find this information online, but Dr. Daniel Howell, in "The Barefoot Book" has an appendix which documents a significant number of litigation suits brought by barefoot patrons and compares it to those of shod customers. Although the difference in the number of suits brought by barefoot patrons is a lot lower than those brought by shod customers, which seems as though you can draw the conclusion that going barefoot poses no additional risk of liability, the problem is that it's probably not enough to set a precedent that it's safe to be barefoot in a business because the proportion of cases seems to correspond to the proportion of people who enter businesses barefoot. Now, if we could convince more people to go into businesses barefoot, and if the number of liability suits either stayed the same or declined, then we'd have a good legal argument for legislating allowing bare feet everywhere.
See, the problem with that, is there is a very tiny percentage of people who go barefoot, so saying they bring less litigation doesn't prove the conclusions you state... You also have to keep in mind it doesn't matter what the realities of it are... it is what the insurance companies will allow or not... Very few companies are willing to drop their insurance carrier over bare feet.
Tom, if you look at the sentences before and after the portion you highlighted you will see I agree with you. You stated it more eloquently than I did though. And yes, businesses will not risk losing their insurance, but I do think that if we reach a tipping point (it doesn't have to even be a majority of customers who go barefoot, but I think that we CAN achieve a majority of people who would SUPPORT barefoot customers) then we can pressure businesses to have to weigh the options instead of just defaulting to the position of "anti-barefoot". Maybe I'm just dreaming...but hey, I'd be in good company.
That was why I quoted it all instead of just the line I highlighted... See, I'm not against being barefoot in anyway... I just think a lot of you are fucking insane for wanting to be barefoot in city or town... lol Outside, in nature, through the forest... over rocks, through streams... hey I'll go with you... not a problem... In towns, in a business or a mall??? You couldn't PAY me to walk barefoot...
To each their own. No argument. Me, personally? I detest wandering around forests, streams, lakes. It's all up to what you like. Which is why pretty much all the barefoot threads are interesting.
Have you ever bought insurance from a business? I'm not trying to disqualify you; I'm just unclear where you came to this conclusion.
I'm not sure what you are asking here... Have I bought insurance? Yes, both personal and commercial. As for where I came to this conclusion... I'm really not sure the exact moment so I have no clue where I was. If you meant to ask how I came to the conclusion that you don't run a business that has customers coming into it without insurance... perhaps I should have added, unless you are a complete moron as the first accident of any type, you will lose everything you own and likely still owe more... If you meant how I came to the conclusion that no business would drop their insurance over the issue of bare feet... see the added part for the previous part...
Probably the question is what kind of business is being talked about. I have a very hard time believing that no matter what the business is all insurance companies insist on a no barefoot customer clause. Perhaps a hardware store or a liquor store yes. But a CVS or a Burger King, not likely. And, tho I agree I have no first hand knowledge, I am sorta not buying the whole blanket statements. On the other hand, maybe Canada is more messed up than the US. That wouldn't be totally surprising. Or maybe we are all wasting our time talking to a troll.....whatever.
So, instead of sticking to the topic, you start insults? I never said all businesses... In fact, I quite clearly did say ones in which you have customers that come in... Will there be exceptions to it? Of course there will, I didn't say there wouldn't be.... What I said, more then once, was that no business would drop their insurance coverage for bare footers... Now, if you have nothing about the topic at hand to add without an insult, I suggest you reconsider continuing down this path.
Oh and just to be really really clear.... On this you are absolutely wrong... Any large chain, definitely does have clauses such as those in their insurance policies... The exceptions would be small businesses such as independent stores...
I said I had no direct knowledge. I do know that not all stores (chains care). Same with small stores. But, I understand you are being really, really, really clear. I get that But, you have picked a topic (insurance no-one can definitively argue with, it's a bit difficult). On the other hand, I did suggest maybe there is a diff between US and Canada. I do not believe I was being insulting. Maybe you are too thin skinned. What chain store do you own? Oh, and where precisely is it?
Well, considering I don't even have the ability to grasp how it is possible that no one can definitively argue with me on the matter of insurance, I don't see much point in continuing with you. Might I suggest you do a little (and I do mean a very little) bit of research and you may discover that insurance is not a mystical, unknowable subject.