Laws regarding bare feet

When I moved from small rural farm town to big city I started getting kicked out of restaurants left and right for my bare feet. Sometimes they were very confrontational about it- like I really offended them and everyone around. Back in the small town it hardly ever happened. I get the feeling from the emotional response of those who find it offensive as if they consider bare feet as a form of nudity and exhibition. I may as well have gone in there with no pants. I just want to feel comfortable and don't intend to attract attention, I try to tell them, to no avail. They just make a big scene out of it in front of everyone else. What sad uptight people around here.

 

Exactly!!

That's why many people have that sign that says "We resereve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Guess what??? Barefeet is no exception. It is NOT discriminating. It is their right to establish dress codes. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Your life will continue, and the world will not come to an end because of this.

I have been asked to leave two different places because I was barefoot. So guess what? I left, and have never returned to those two stores. I went to a competitor of the one place that was totaly rude when they kicked me out, and the manager at the competing store was ringing up my items at the register. I told her what had happened minutes before at the other store, and she laughed, and agreed that it was a stupid policy. She told me that me, and my barefeet were welcome back absolutely anytime.

So what just happened there, I got asked to leave, I didn't bitch about it, instead I went somewhere else, and it turned out that I established a great relationship with this new store.

the only people who are assed out, are the idiots at the first store. Not me.

My question is, why can't all barefooters be cool like that?

That's almost like a smoker getting pissed off that he was thrown out of a non-smoking establishment.

 

Yes, when it comes down to it, a store is private property and they can tell you to leave for whatever reason they want. Fortunately there are other places to go. And there are other towns where attitudes are totally different. Thank goodness we have our feet to walk away to new horizons.

 

Oh sjeez, not again, we've been over this so many times. It may be legally okay for a store owner to kick people out based on the way they're dressed, but morally it's *not*. It is just as much discrimination as throwing someone out based on their skin color; in both cases people are being banned from going about their business in a way that harms NO ONE based ONLY on their appearance. Sure, a black person can't change their skin color and a barefooter can put on shoes, but that's only a practical difference. Morally, it's equally wrong to kick *anyone* out for *any* appearance-based reason.

Second, all this 'leaving and going somewhere else' probably works most of the time, but what if you're in a small town and the next store is 40 miles away? What if it's not a grocery store but some specialty store and you can't go elsewhere? What if it's public transportation and you don't have shoes with you -I guess if there are actual rules against bare feet you can argue you should've had footwear with you, but what if there is no rule but still the driver on the return trip doesn't want to take you, while another driver had taken you out there without comment, is it the driver's right to leave you stranded?

Glad you said 'almost' because second-hand smoke has been proven many times to be a health risk and there is no such thing as second-hand barefooting. I can walk around a store all day barefoot and no one else even has to touch the floor with a single toe, while the moment someone lights up everyone who is nearby has to inhale a little bit of their smoke.

Please do not equate these two things, they are *very* different. If my barefooting meant even ONE other customer in an entire YEAR had to take even ONE barefoot step against their will, I would not object to footwear rules, any more than I object to anti-smoking rules.

 

There are somethings that they cant ask you to leave for because it would be considered discrmination. Refusal of service should only be reserved for those who are genuinely causing a disturbance or are doing something illegal or harmful. Businesses should not abuse their power on customers who sincerly want to contribute to the business and mean nobody any harm.

That sign isnt really accurate because they cant just refuse service to "anyone". Also many businesses selectively enforce the sign when it pleases them and they pick and chose who they want to bully on and I really dont think thats fair or right.

Of course its discrimination! We got a right to go where we please as we were meant to be on this Earth. Besides what if that place is the only joint in town? Where would that person go if they are refused? Especially if that place had something they desperately needed? Does a business really want to or can it afford to drive away a genuine customer over something so pointless?

What if the "competition" feels the same way though? Or what if like I said theyre the only place in town, then what do you do? People shouldnt have to resort to hunt and peck just to find a decent place that will accept them.

Why does a business really care what I wear in their store as long as they get my money anyways? Im surprised they could afford a potential customer taking his business somewhere else. Especially if alot of other people caught on and followed suit. Some businesses suffer when they let ALL their customers in so just imagine what could happen if they denied service to every little person out there they had some personal gripe with. Employees need to leave their personal prejudices at the door and allow all potential customers to come in and shop so long as they are not harming anyone or causing a disturbance or doing anything illegal.

 

How are shoes less dirty than feet? Don't some Asians take their shoes off and walk around barefoot inside?

 

We're outnumbered. The average Joe or Jill couldn't care less. That's why I don't see things changing (soon enough) for someone my age, anyway.

As others here have pointed out, once this piece of discrimination is determined OK, is that where it stops? When I reported on my Walmart incident last summer, someone here replied that "next they'll be telling us what to do with our genitals" or similar. While even I don't think it'll go that far, I wonder when they'll tell me (tell me, mind you!) not to show up in shorts, or whatever else I'm used to wearing. A puritanical culture could easily go that way. We were almost that way when I was very young. Amazing, the freest nation on earth, supposedly.

But that's some of the problem. The freest nation has a large proportion of control freaks. I don't know why. Because of that, there will be few standards. Again, as others here point out, one driver may let you into transit barefoot, but the return trip later may be stopped by another low-level employee who says no.

Also, (to get it all off my chest all at once, not just replying to you, Matthew)---the issue of taking our business elsewhere. I don't think Walmart or Home Depot will miss me any. No way. They can do whatever they want in America. The few of us who take a stand and buy elsewhere will never make a difference to those huge companies. The millions are obediant and do what they say---problem solved, it works for them.

The local building supplies chain here is happy to see me come back to them from Home Depot, and they are fine with my feet. I don't know if they will change. But the depot was happy to see me go, and has forgotten me. The only thing I got from several emails to Home Depot's corporate offices was a bromidic statement like, "at Home Depot we take the safety of our valued customers very seriously." Or some such blather. Oh give me a break---Instead of being grossed out by bare feet because of selling food at a gas station, Home Depot is worried about saving their liable asses. It is a litiginous America, and we brought this on ourselves, but again, the few of us who assume responsibility for ourselves aren't enough to make a difference.

 

I never talked about morality. I am talking Law. I am sorry that the world is not always a happy place filled with bubble gum, and rainbows.

Actually it's not. Stores worry about barefooters getting hurt. If someone gets hurt and wants to be stupid and try to make a lawsuit, the stores don't want to go through the B.S. A person typically can not go into a store and get hurt because of skin color, but can get hurt if not wearing proper foot protection in certain environments.

Then you put on flip flops or sandals for that short period of time. This may come to a shock to you, but you WILL NOT die from it. I promise.

That depends on the bus companies policies. If they state nothing about bare feet, then you should be able to ride with no problems, and if a driver rejects you, you can report him. If they have a policy that says no bare feet, then you are assed out.

I think you must've missed something here. This is a metaphor. Never did I state that barefooting is unhealthy to yourself or others. It is the principle.
If you don't like the smoking example, lets talk guns, backpacks, camera's or anything else that you may have seen signs prohibiting. just because I am wearing a backpack and go into a store, doesn't mean I am going to steal something. Just because a gun collector has a permit, and carries a gun doesn't mean he is going to shoot people, but these things are banned for reasons.

Most magic shows, some plays, concerts, and such don't allow photography, so they have a no camera policy. Does that mean that they are discriminating people who carry camera's? I'd sure hope not. Do I need to keep going?

The point is, businesses have reasons for setting rules. Though most of them suck, they have their rules, and if you don't want to follow them you are now trespassing.

Ok, well why don't you go run naked in an elementary school, and see what happens. After all, if we were meant to be barefoot, we're meant to be nude as well. Unfortunately that's not how the authorities feel.

Again, you put something on your feet during that time. Why complain about having to be shod for a brief moment, but not make the same arguments for having to wear clothing over your genitals all day?

Sure they can. It's the reasoning that can or can't make that rule legally work. There is no bullying going on. Believe it or not, people are not "out to get barefooters"

 

Nobody ever said it had to be filled with bubble gum and rainbows, but just because something is legal to do doesnt make it the right or moral thing to do. There are alot of things that are legal but people still dont do them because they are morally wrong. Smoking is perfectly legal but it sure isnt morally right to do it. Denying service to barefoot customers is just as bad even if it is perfectly legal.

Of course it is, people shouldnt be judged by what they wear. A simple flip flop should not be the difference as to weither a person is a valued customer or a nusiance. All people should be treated as potential customers weither they have shoes on or not. Anything else is discrmination.

Most big businesses like Wal Mart and Home Depot have alot of money and good lawyers and if theyd use some common sense theyd come to realize they have nothing to worry about. If a customer comes in barefoot theyre smart enough to know the risks involved and obviously by going barefoot they accept these risks and the store cant be liable for the customer's own stupidity if they get themselves hurt. Besides when youre barefoot youre more aware of your surroundings and less likely to hurt yourself. If someone gets hurt in a store, all the store has to say is the person should have worn shoes and since they chose not to and got hurt its their own fault for being so stupid. Simple as that. These companies have so much money and power many of them would end up getting any court to laugh any complaining customer right out of their courtroom and most of these places should be smart enough to realize this.

Depends on where you live, sometimes skin color can get you hurt if the people inside the store are racist. Should a store be held liable because a customer got hurt by other racist customers?

Why should they have to do that though? The store is there to serve the customer and the store should be the one to abide by the customer's wishes if they want to get people to come in and bring them money for their services.

Some bus companies have their rules in employee handbooks that the public has no access to and yet they expect the customer to know and abide by those rules but since the customer cant see the rules to abide by them its impossible to follow those rules. Also complaining to their corporate headquarters does no good becase they just give you some burecratic bs and then just ignore your complaint. Youre lucky if you even get a real live breathing person to respond to your complaint and not just some damn machine.

Those rules are simply made by paranoid people who do not have a full grasp on reality or areint willing to accept it. These people beleive there is some perceived danger from these things when there isnt. When someone brings a backpack into a store, the store should wait until the person actually tries to steal something and then do something about it, not antagonize the person before theyve even done anything wrong because 99% of the time they wont.

They do this so that people cannot take pictures of how the magicians perform their tricks and then copy them and emulate them somewhere else. That rule has a practical use, but still the vast majority of people who would take pictures at magic shows have no intention of doing such things and shouldnt be punished simply because there are a few who actually do those things. They should simply try harder to catch the ones who are there to do something illegal. There is no legitimate reason to ban people from going into shops barefoot though. Its mostly just done because of some personal prejudice or dislike of bare feet.

These businesses need to have rules for practical reasons and not abuse their power by making up phony rules for silly reasons that have no purpose. I dont really like being labeled in the same sense as a criminal just because I chose to go somewhere barefoot and break some silly rule by some self absorbed person who has some personal prejudice against me. I think these store owners need to learn to put their personal prejudices aside and let me shop like anyone else there and give me the dignity and respect I deserve and not treat me like some petty thug.

One thing at a time, barefooting is legal, nudity isnt and more people are willing to accept going barefoot now than they are with nudity. I hope that eventually nudity can be accepted too but for the time being its best to try to get what we can get accepted.

Going barefoot is legal, nudity isnt. Also im more comfortable for the moment keeping my pants on than my shoes. Besides feet are not genitals. Two entirely different things.

If that were the case then they chould deny service to someone because they are black or they are male or theyre gay or theyre Christian or theyre too young or too old or too ugly. They do have a vast amount of freedom in what they can impose but there are limits. They do bully on barefooters because they ban them for the simple reason that they do not like bare feet and I dont feel that is sufficient reason to deny someone service. The least they could do is come up with a more practical excuse that works then maybe they would get more sympathy from people.

 

As far as this whole nudity thing is concerned, if I ran a store and a naked man happened to come in, I would treat him like any other customer. Somebody might call the police on him and he might get arrested but I wouldnt be the one to call them and until the police got there to arrest the man he would be welcome within my establishment. The only reason I would condone someone breaking the law like that is because I beleive the law discriminates against them and I think it should be legal to go naked wherever you wish.

 

Morality is *my* point. It once was against the law for colored people to go to the same stores and ride wherever they wanted on the bus; fortunately, a majority has since seen the *moral* error in that and changed the law.
I know the current law, and I know it won't get changed any time soon, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. If something is wrong and you want to shrug and say 'oh well, life isn't fair' that's fine. I, on the other hand, prefer to try and do something about it -for example by pointing out how ridiculous and unethical it is. THAT is what I am talking about.

We've been over this a dozen times or so too; in most cases this is just a dumb excuse. Almost all stores that don't allow bare feet will let me put on 6-inch heels or platforms and let me shop there. It's NOT 'proper footwear' they're worried about; they single out bare feet. Only a few rare places are truly concerned with injuries, like construction sites, and there I don't object to footwear rules.

Also most 'experts' have no anti-barefoot rules; the Health Department, in spite of all the myths, does not single out bare feet. The same for insurance companies; in spite of the frequent claims their policies prohibit bare feet, people from the SBL have looked and not found a single one containing anything about bare feet at all. Many of us have been in hospitals and such with far less problems than in general stores -now who do you think knows more about true health risks, a doctor or a cashier? The FAA actually removed the 'no bare feet' rule and now only *recommends* 'low-heeled, canvas or leather shoes'.

Ignorance is no excuse; 50 years ago many people truly believed Blacks were dirty, lesser humans.

It is very inconvenient. I have mentioned many times before as well, I don't own a car, I'd have to carry them in my bag all the time. If you've ever been dependant on walking, bicycling and public transport you'll probably understand it's no fun to have to carry a lot of 'just in case' stuff.

I don't like carrying footwear along with my groceries either; while I don't have a problem with dirt on my bare feet, the reason that doesn't bother me is that my feet remain on the ground just like shoes normally do. The moment I start having to handle footwear all the time, and having to bag it, I am actually increasing health risks. These two reasons are actual, physical inconveniences, while for the person who doesn't like to *see* bare feet it's a non-physical inconvenience, a *preference*, only.

Next, I believe that complying with such things is morally wrong and I will have no part of it, just like I sincerely hope I would've had the courage to object to discrimination -even when such a thing was perfectly legal!- if I had lived in the '50s.

I could report him, but I'd still be stuck.

As I've pointed out many times before, the bias against bare feet is not based on true risks, but on myths. If it weren't, I wouldn't be able to put on those 6-inch heels and wobble right back in. You should compare this to rules against other differences in appearance like tattoo's and piercings, which are not based on true risks but on appearance, conformity, etc only -those kind of rules I object to just as much, even though I don't have any tats or piercings. You keep citing examples where there *is* a *real* risk at either injury or loss to the business.

Also, the examples you name won't be arbitrarily enforced. A place banning pictures would ban a video camera as well. A place banning backpacks would ban a suitcase also. A place banning dogs would object to a leashed ferret too. A place banning guns would almost certainly now allow a crossbow either. A place banning bare feet would not allow a pair of flimsy flipflops or platforms.... oh wait, but it will. See what I mean?

I know I've written this all before; why not re-read some of those old threads?

I personally am not interested in going naked; I don't think it's physically comfortable. Also, in our current society full nudity causes a true oproar, while bare feet rarely if ever cause more than a glance. But I hope there'll come a day when we'll be more relaxed about non-sexual nudity and people will indeed be able to shop naked if they want to.

We're usually talking bare feet here, since this is the 'bare it' forum, and I agree the number of people who're against barefooters only is probably very small... but unfortunately there are people out there who're out to get those who don't look acceptable in their eyes, even when there is NO ACTUAL HARM being done. This excludes most of the examples you've named, but does include other examples of dress, piercings, tats, and hairdo's. That, unfortunately, is bullying and it's not that uncommon either.

 

only skimmed this thread sorry, so this may have been covered already, but i don't get the 'health' thing.

there is no logic in refusing barefooted people for the sake of other people's health. what's the difference between shoes touching the ground and bare soles touching the ground? it doesn't make a difference to anyone other than that person.

for the person themself, i can understand 'refusal for health and safety reasons' a bit better. someone might drop something sharp on their foot for example. but if we're all consenting adults, surely it's our own problem?

 

These guys who claim bare feet are a health risk are the same people who are grossed out at touching almost anything anybody else touches and they have to wash their hands a million times and they still dont think they get all the filth off. Theyre gonna die of cronic paranoia before they reach age 50. Anybody who is germaphobic to that extent shouldnt even be running a store.

 

DROP something ON their foot? Then why do these stores NEVER have any problem with flipflops?

 

^ TRUE!

what IS the difference between flip-flops and bare feet? silly people

btw my example was a classic argument, i don't support it as i think that truly...we should be old enough to avoid accidents by now or at least take responsibility anyway

 

this is not just an asian custom I work in and out of ppls houses alot and i'd say 70% or more (considering some ppl just trash ther places) of the homes i go into would prefer you didn't wear shoes in there house even if they are "clean"

And yes shoes are much dirtyer in most cases they just don't look dirty cause they make um that way (to not look dirty even when they are)

WHAT ABOUT HANDS in a restaruant do you eat with your feet?? arn't your hands at least (if not more) dirty/germ infested just from the door handle and the money( the dirtyest thing ever money) and they don't require you to put on gloves to eat THEY DON'T EVEN MAKE YOU WASH YOUR HANDS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO AND YOU FREEKING EAT WITH YOUR HANDS

whats a dirty foot on the floor, compared to a dirty hand on a table?

I dont get it why don't ppl use ther brains?? thats what ther for

 

ok this is true BUT if they realy were worryed about my "safety" why would they let me wear a flipflop ?

i was walking in walmart the other day(wearing my flipflops cause i "had too" and i hit a wet patch on the floor at that point the flipflop started to twist and almost made me twist my ankle i'd say from a sliping point of view they are MORE dangerous than going barefoot cause now you can slip on 2 surfaces insteead of just one and have you ever seen anything in a walmart on the floor that would hurt a barefooter but not hurt a 1 cm flipflop?? like what a tumbtack? they sweep there floors so no one(cause shoes are slipery too and don't help alot against tacks or nails) falls and sues them

that being said its probably the safest way to walk in a store and its the safest place to walk

here is the kicker IF you DO get hurt in the parking lot (even with shoes on ie. broken glass nails etc.) its still there property and they are still liable for the fall cause they have to keep it safe TOO Like if it snows and they don't remove the snow and some one falls they are liable and i walk out there barefoot all the time and no one cares isn't the inside of the store a safer place to walk than there parking lot? why make a big deal inside but not out side (unless its snowing then they remember there liability outside but still wont care if your barefoot in the snow just if you fall or go inside >.>) its crazzy if you think about it

 

Of course they wouldnt, if saftey was the issue theyd make you wear shoes but we all know it has absoulutely nothing to do with saftey. It has everything to do with owners of these companies being prejudiced and abusing their freedoms and bullying their customers. They think just because they are on private property that they are above the law and can discriminate against anyone they wish. That whole "we have the right to refuse service to anyone" sign doesnt mean a damn thing. There are limits to that.