Sometimes there *are* laws

I meant, how do you know that most commercial insurance policies require a policy that bans barefoot customers? Sorry, that was a poorly worded question.

 

Actually, I'll retract my comments regarding insurance companies...

 

I understand that they are privately owned and operated as opposed to public lands and buildings, however, are there not reasonable limits to what exclusions such places of essential public business (access to groceries and other supplies etc) may be imposed upon its patrons ie. segregation, arbitrary refusal of service etc?

As long as a person's attire is not illegal nor indecent, I do not believe that it should be a legally permissible exclusion for such publicly accessed places. A mall is not a member's only club, it is a hub for essential services and goods. I can understand restaurants and nightclubs having 'dress codes' etc as they are far from essential places, however, your local mall is not.

 

100% BULLSHIT...

A mall is a business like any other... You didnt put out the money to build it, you dont put out the money to keep it going, you don't put out the money to cover for it if the stores dont pay the rent, and you dont put any money towards taxes to pay for it...

If you don't like their business policies... dont go there... simple as that...

Following this theory that it is some sort of essential service is 100% crap... by the same token you could argue that EVERY business is 'essential'.

 

Actually, regarding malls. Where I live a mall had someone who was collecting signatures for a campaign arrested for trespassing. The courts decided that malls are modern day town squares and that someone with legitimate business (not business that would siphon off revenue from stores or the mall) had every right to conduct legitimate activities. The person was let off and recovered a large amount of money from the mall. But I should also mention I got kicked out of a different mall for being barefoot this summer. It was a huge mall with very dirty floors. I was enjoying getting my soles black. There was no danger of wounding myself and suing, but I left immediately because I felt it was their right if they objected. Other malls have not objected to my activities.

 

Well, unless there are towns somewhere that all the business are located in malls, that court ruling wouldn't stand for very long if challenged.

A person buys land, builds a building, rents parts of that building out to other businesses... that is what a mall is. It is not paid for by tax dollars, it is paid for by the owner and the revenue that their activities provide...

If I owned a mall, I wouldn't care if someone wanted to be barefoot... That would be their choice as far as I'm concerned.... but I would fight any court ruling that said I HAD to allow them. Just as I would fight a court ruling that said I HAD to ban them.

 

I wouldn't disagree with your take on this, but this state has a very liberal supreme court. And their thing was that if the guy wasn't harrassing anyone or causing them commercial loss of money, the mall had no standing. And, I'm strictly talking about a civic situation where a person was soliciting signatures for a candidate getting on a ballot. NOT, for the freedom of shopping barefoot.....Just relaying what happened about 20 years ago since the topic became malls. No biggie.

 

I bounce back and forth on the rights of businesses... but in most cases, I look at it the same as I do individuals... if it isn't causing direct harm, there is should be a choice.

If the market disagrees with the business, the business will change or fold... That part of free enterprise I am totally for.

Just as a person should have the freedom to choose to be barefoot on public property, they should also have the right to say they don't want people barefoot on their property, whether that is a business or not.

Having said that, I think any business that limits their customers by such means is pretty shortsighted.

Oh, on that specific case you mentioned... I still think it would fail if it was challenged by any competent lawyer.

Simple argument... if that person wants to come on your property to get signatures from people in your house (regardless of whether he is barefoot or not) should you not be able to tell him no?

 

To your latter point, if a person comes on my property for signaures ot to tell me about god or whatever, yes I can tell them to go away. But they do get to carry issued permits that allow them to try and I can't as a result say they are trespassing. And to your other points, I think a lot of business' probably would rather have paying customers (even barefoot ones) rather than turn them away. And I agree with you also some business's should be leery if there is a chance of broken glass or dropped nails or something. In my experience, local stores that know me know I pay attention and am not gonna step on something thats gonna hurt. Even if deep down I am a masochist (joking!!)

 

There are permits that allow private citizens to go on private property against the owners wishes?

Are they called permits to get your ass kicked?

 

LOL, pretty much. Ask me about the devout local Baptist church that sent a young (17-maybe 18 yr old) seriously hot girl to ask for donations one summer. They dressed her in the most minimal mini skirt possible. But she DID have a permit.....and my awe. But sadly, instead of keeping with the threads here on forums, she wasn't barefoot. But she def looked like Daisy May.

 

A permit for what?

I would LOVE to see some jackass religious sheep try to tell me they had a permit to come on my property against my will...

After they removed the permit from their ass, I would LOVE to go to court over it...

 

Actually as a paying customer, I am one of many sources of income that go toward the paying of rent, construction, maintenance etc of said mall. Its part of the mark up that I pay when I shop there.

More later

 

Also, there must be limitations on arbitrary refusal of service ie no blacks, muslims etc

 

So what... that doesn't make it your place or give you any right to say how they run their business.

As for your next post, there is a huge difference between saying a black person can't come on your property and saying that someone who CHOOSES to wear no shoes can't.

 

Yup, you get todays prize for the most ludicrous comparison.:2thumbsup::sunny:

 

I hate barefooters, I can't wright enough paragraphs to explain why. You're such assholes... total assholes...

Why is THIS what you make your big stand in life about? I can't.. what... fuck man

just fucking with people and raising a huge stink (lol) over the most trivial dumb shit. "I don't wanna wear shoes and you can't make me"

Like children... retarded spoiled brat ass children.

there are people dying and starving over REAL problems and this is this shit you bother me with? FUCK YOU.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the point. Compare:

Store owner refuses to allow a woman to shop at his business because she is wearing a burqa.
Store owner refuses to allow a woman to shop at his business because she is barefoot.
Store owner refuses to allow a man to shop at his business because he is covered in tattoos and piercings.

All these are choices made by the customer, informed by their cultural and individual preferences. Is one example acceptable and the others not? Would you support refusing entry to the burqa-wearing customer? Does the store owner have that right? Legally, yes. But that is the question here - where does the legal right end and the fundamental right to live free of harrassment begin?

I don't think the argument "you CHOOSE to be barefoot" holds any water. Of course a black person doesn't choose their skin color, and cannot change. What makes you think that a barefooter can change who THEY are? "Just put on some shoes" sounds like a non-issue to a non-barefooter. But it's not a trivial matter to us.

Can we tell the tattooed, pierced young man that he must change? Should we all, in order to make our way in the world, which requires the buying and selling of goods and services, be forced to fit into what "businesses" consider appropriate? Or should we as a society define those rules? Me, I think that we need to do the latter. That's what threads like this are about: We're not denying that businesses currently have the LEGAL right to deny us services, we're simply making the case that their reasons are prejudicial. The ONLY argument that businesses can make is for liability, but it's a ludicrous argument.

And no, in this case, I'm not giving a pass to the burqa-wearer solely because it's a religious tradition and the woman may not have much say in the matter. For those of us who go barefoot, shoes are not *really* a choice either. We liken it to being told that we need to put on boxing gloves on our hands to enter into an establishment. Sure, we COULD do it, but the loss of function, sensation and freedom we would encounter in doing so would render such a "choice" to be undesirable to say the least.

 

Well thats a good runner up for ludicrous comparisons.
AGAIN, as Tom has pointed out NUMEROUS times, it's about liability issues and insurance matters for the stores, not discrimination.
Why in the hell is so friggin hard for some of you "barefooters" to comprehend that very simple and blatant FACT?????

I have worked in retail for many many years, and that is plain and simple what it boils down to, liability.

That is just down right ridiculous and provided me with a pretty good laugh.

 

RE: Liability: Please tell me how a 3-10mm strip of rubber between my sole and the floor somehow protects my feet from injury?

PB, I don't think you understood my position. I stated that I don't deny that liability is cited as your reasoning. I'm simply questioning the logic of that claim.

By citing liability, a business is making the following claim: "bare feet are prone to injury". The burden of proof is on the business to then provide evidence for that claim. To date, I have not seen this evidence. If they allow flip flops (which they do), which offer almost no protection from the same injuries one would experience if barefoot, then their argument of liability is prejudicial. Or are you proposing that businesses disallow flip flops now, too?

Liability also swings the other way too - should Costco start requiring its customers to wear protective head coverings, to account for the possibility of falling pallets full of heavy goods? If I touch a door handle that is germ-covered, and get sick, will we be expected to wear latex gloves upon entering?

What I'm saying is that we ALL take responsibility for our health and safety every time we leave the house. We cannot protect ourselves from every eventuality. Barefooters assume one kind of risk. Women who totter around on 7-inch heels assume another. What, in your mind, is the difference between those two? To me, they are both liable to themselves for their choices. Most juries in this country would agree with that.

We're not questioning the FACT that liability exists. We're questioning whether the argument for its implementation is this case holds any merit, or whether it's simply an arbitrary (readrejudicial) argument.