yep, a woman with a ** GASP ** barefoot 6 month old baby girl was kicked out of a Missouri Burger King. I saw the article on CNN.com. the video said the woman (who was shod) and her 6 (SIX) month old baby went to a burger king in Sunset Hills, Missouri to eat. Like most baby's she didn't have anything on her feet. The manager said it was a violation of health code to come in barefoot. The mom replied that the baby wasn't going to walk on the floor. The manager persisted and the mom went out to the car and put socks on her baby. NOPE, that wasn't good enough and if she stayed the manager said she would call the police. So the mom got the order to go and ate out side. Burger King headquaters found out about this and issued an apology. In a statement released Thursday, indicated workers had taken the no shoes, no service policy too far. The franchise owner also contacted Frederich to apologize in person. She was given the apology and will get free meal.
I wouldn't have gotten the order to go. I would have just taken my business elsewhere. That is pure B.S. I really don't understand what goes on is some people's heads.
I agree. I wouldn't have supported that location by buying food. It's good though that it made media coverage on how ridiculous this situation was. A plus for the barefoot community.
I'll copy and paste the message I sent to the SBL on this subject earlier today. I think it's time we got the health code to work FOR us for a change. Since there is nothing in the health code against going barefoot into places such as these, I think we should appeal to the health departments of our respective countries to make it AGAINST the health code to misrepresent it. Just as impersonating a police officer is against the law, I think misquoting the law (including health code), in order to appear forced to do things that in truth they are making a free choice to do, should be equally reprehensible. Establishments will always be able to impose any rules they like, be it dress code, or even excluding women or black people if they really want to (but of course most wouldn't want to and even if they wanted to they wouldn't as they'd know that it would ruin their business). BUT, I think it should be a legal requirement that they SAY it's because of THEIR PREFERENCES, instead of pretending that their hands are tied. Obviously the "bare feet at own risk" policy that is often mentioned by this group, and has been for years, is still the ideal way to go. But I don't think these draconian outfits are going to listen to that, otherwise they would have started using signs bearing that message years ago. What we need is for the health department to force businesses to state that any decisions they make are their own. If they're forced to make a decision between giving in to our rights to go barefoot, or to reveal to the world that they're being snobbish about it, then some may even choose the allow us to go barefoot, happy in the knowledge that it's not against health and safety and we are the ones responsible, not them. If not, then at the very least businesses, who make the decision not to allow bare feet are exposed as having made a free choice to exclude people unnecessarily, and the world gets to see that there are no ultimate rules governing such decisions. The world therefore gets to see that it's generally ok to go barefoot and I believe barefoot acceptance will be greater, and the businesses who choose to exclude a revealed as being unnecessarily fussy. In some cases the businesses might genuinely be mistaken about whether or not they are allowed to allow bare feet on their premises. If so then this would enlighten them. People who are into writing letters - you should write to your MPs (or whatever you have over in yankland), and your local department of health and see if you can get them to force businesses to be more open about their policies. Let's get them to make it clear to businesses that they can't make up health and safety rules that don't exist. Rant over.