Sometimes there *are* laws

All very valid points. But some people are sue happy regardless of their own culpability in the situation, therefore signs and policies need to be in place to protect against the sue happy assholes. Whether such policies hold any merit in your eyes or not is irrelevant.
It is along the same lines of the "Do not drive while using" warnings on those windshield sunshades. What asshole would really think they can drive with one of those in the windshield, yet the warning is plainly there to limit the manufacturers liability.
In places such as Costco they do have signs on just about every aisle warning of such dangers, thereby limiting thier liability.
Problem is that rather than seeing it for what it is, you guys would rather act like you are being singled out and persecuted, which is really asinine.
Essentially, you guys are creating an issue over something that is a non-issue.

 

But the examples you cite are all fine examples of limiting liability. NSNSNS doesn't LIMIT liability, it cuts it off.

If we instead saw signs that read "Use caution when barefoot", or "Barefoot customers enter at their own risk" it accomplishes what you're describing. We feel singled out because we're being told we're not welcome.

We're not being persecuted. I agree some barefooters can put it that way. But we are being limited in the choices we might make. Our freedoms aren't being taken away, but they are being curtailed. You might not say it's a big deal for you. OK, great. But then if I say it's a big deal to me, why does my opinion not matter? Change in society can begin with even just one person standing up and saying "I think this is unfair". If the signs in Costco said "No uncovered heads" do you think most people would feel ambivalent about it? Or would they complain? Think of the uproar over the motorcyle helmet law - now there was an instance where there is clear evidence that wearing a helmet will save your life and prevent injury, and people STILL complained that their choices were being legislated. If companies could demonstrate that I am assuming an unreasonable threat to my person by being barefoot, I would give more thought to their position.

And really, if bare feet were such a "non-issue" then we would not even be having this conversation. If it weren't an issue, I'd be able to go wherever I wanted, in shoes or barefoot, and no one would care. But people do care. I'm not TRYING to call attention to my state of dress, because doing so only makes my life more difficult. I'd be happy if no one ever noticed, or bothered me about my lack of footwear ever again, believe me!

 

I don't think barefooters are making it an issue. In going back through the thread I think people were asking about the reality of all insurance policies having specific language regarding barefoot shoppers. No one seems to be demanding a universal right. In this country even idiots have the right to display stupidity and annoy other folks. Liability probably has more to do with the type of store (presence of sharp objects) prejudice, and/or the degree of the owner's paranoia. Like I said earlier, when asked to leave a mall cause I was barefoot, I didn't make a major argument. If the mall wants me gone and doesn't care about the fact that for the stores within, that my shopping $$ went out the door with me, so be it. I could have fetched flip flops (which don't really spare others from seeing my feet) but I went and shopped at another store. I never understood how flip flops made a person "shod" and therefore was a more acceptable mode of "fashion" than plain barefeet.

 

Write*

It's not. Personally, my "big stand" is economic freedom and the Austrian school of economics. But it's something I'd like to see changed. Kind of like how I think it'd be awesome to have gigantic slides going to the ground floor of a building instead of elevators, only with going barefoot, I can actually try to start a trend.

Sorry, I didn't laugh out loud at your pun.

I wouldn't call this a "huge stink" anyway. We post occasionally on a forum, and for fun, debate the ethics of the subject in a civil manner with people like ChronicTom, who disagree on some aspect in a diplomatic matter.

Well, not really. Most children would simply cave to authority. I wouldn't say those of us who respect a business's right to deny us business spoiled either. To disagree with them does not make us spoiled; it just means we disagree with them and see the fallacy of their argument.

Speaking of fallacies, that's a very heavy argumentum ad hominem you've got there!

Speak for yourself. You came to this forum. You read and responded to the topic. I've done more in civic education and know more case laws and statutes than you could ever know, judging by your slovenly, insipid, provincial vocabulary. I'm not saying I know more than anyone; I'm sure it'd be easy to find someone on this forum who knows more. But you, in particular, are making yourself out to be an anal-retentive poor-man's version of Lewis Black, and a very disappointing one at that.

 

I'm glad i live in the UK where no-one cares if you wear shoes or not.
I have never set eyes on a no shoes no service sign, or been refused entry anywhere.

 

I'm not gonna lie most of that was pretty witty. I still hate your feet.

really, how hard is it for you people to compromise? Carry a pair of sandels so you don't have to give shit to every single person with a reasonable dress code who wants to keep a certian level od dignity and comfort in their establisment.

All you'd have to do is carry some fucking sandals. You can take them off ass soon as you aren't on another mans floor. But no, you're unreasonable and you raise a stink over some trivial figurehead to freedom or anti-conformity or whatever the hell you call that special breed of baseless entitlement.

And if you don't like shoes but don't act like an asshole.. I'm not talking to you so don't be offended.

 

You're certainly entitled to hate. You've made that endlessly apparent. "reasonable" ---who put YOU in charge?

 

You're the ones giving them shit. I had one of you raise a stink in my resturant to the point the boss let him eat there just so more customers wouldn't leave. We lost a table... dude comes in with nasty ass blackfoot leaving footprints on the carpet screaming and raving about his rights. All he ordered was a appitizer and a drink and payed with change.

Lost a full table of people eating meals because they were discusted with his feet and unnearved by his bitching. But as long as he has the right to not wear shoes anywhere if he dunt wanna... fuck the man who owns the resturant that's going down the hole.

impudent child

 

sam, your reasons are truly hilarious, specially when it comes to the points of the footprints, (it's obvious that only with bare feet people leaves them...) and the amount of the bill. i'd rather say that the point was this barefoot guy making a lot of noise while the proper thing to do was to leave quietly and look for another cafe.

 

Of course, the same could be said on the other side of it... If the restaurant hadn't put up a fuss over it and just let the guy eat like any other person, most people wouldn't have even noticed... and if they had, they would have shrugged and went about eating their meals...

 

I guess I'm over reacting by labeling a whole group of people for the actions of one... my problem is with that guys attitude and any other that mirrors it. I do it myself sometimes in one way or another.

 

I don't think anyone here has advocated making a confrontation if they are asked not to come in a place of business barefoot. As to someone sitting down with black soles and toes, I'd ask for a table with a better view.

 

It's not about sanitation, and it's not because going barefoot is potentially THAT dangerous. It's about legal protection (And in this case, government overreach, and paranoia about sanitation.... but still)

 

It's not just about legal protection, it's also about aesthetics. Truth be told a lot of people have bad smelling feet, whether they wear shoes or not. The bottom of the foot has an enormous amount of sweat glands. I don't want the person sitting across from me having their black, smelly feet in the air.

I still don't understand even wanting to go barefoot into places though. People have been wearing shoes of some sort for near 40,000 years. We don't live in the lush grass of the African plains anymore. Why in god's name would anyone want to go into a place like Wendy's barefoot. The surface is hard, greasy, barely ever gets cleaned despite the massive amount of traffic, there's gonna be glass somewhere, ect. Hell I wouldn't want to go into most places even with just socks on.

 

You don't HAVE to understand it; you don't HAVE to like it; you don't HAVE to agree with it. We ALL live in a society; you DO have to live with it.

 

You addressed it to "barefooters," and I sort of consider myself one. I don't think I acted much like an asshole considering your exhortation.

 

Actually in this regards I don't since it's considered a public health hazard and is generally not allowed.

 

Your statement is entirely false.

 

Right, minus the 90% of places that have a
-No shirt
-No shoes
-No service
sign

 

It is NOT a public health hazard. But it IS generally not allowed, for a variety of (mostly illogical) reasons we've already covered here.

Foot odor is a result of encasing one's feet in shoes all day where they can't breathe and bacteria is allowed to flourish. My feet smell about as much as my hands do.

Sweat and moisture are not factors, as they dry on a bare foot quickly, as opposed to in a shoe where it can remain for hours. I agree that to some, a black, dirty sole appears unhygienic. But it's cleaner than the black, dirty sole of a shoe, which almost never gets washed. All the issues you take with dirt and grease are exactly the same issues people wearing shoes face - being barefoot does not add to those detractors.