Interesting first comment.
12 Likes
i have heard that the “no shirt/no shoes” policy first became popular in the 60s, as a way to allow businesses a way out from having to serve hippies. not sure if it’s true or not. personally, i can’t really see how it has any real health implications to walk barefoot into a store, or without a shirt.
2 Likes
Okay then.
6 Likes
A place that serves food is obligated to enforce sanitation standards as established by the state Health Department.
2 Likes
aha – here’s what i was referring to:
6 Likes
I agree with you in spirit, having come from a footwear-adjacent culture.
But having worked in a convenience store back in the late twentieth century, I couldn’t keep the floor guaranteed sliver-free if I had to. We could go six weeks without busting a bottle in our store (hypothetically speaking of course, six days would be a really good stretch in real life), sweep and mop the place meticulously twice a day, and still not be barefoot-safe. Because warehouses and trucks are neither devoid of breakage, nor swept and mopped meticulously after each breakage, so some fraction of bottles comes in wholly intact but with slivers externally affixed, as do some boxes.
Shirts I don’t have any real feelings about, except that the less the clientele is wearing, the easier it is to watch for shoplifters. But shoes? So far from optional.
9 Likes
There used to be a restaurant in the area with a modified sign that said:
NO SHIRT
NO SHOES
NO A-SHIRTS
NO SERVICE
1 Like
You bring up an excellent point about the potential liability for the store owners.
Regardless to the ‘original reasons’ that such standards started, I presume that they remain in place as a way of mitigating potential damage.
I didn’t make the laws and I have no power (obviously, as a I am a working poor Black woman in the US.)
I was simply answering an honest question as to the legality of denying service within the US, and my answer was correct; it is legal, as long as it’s not based upon discrimination of a protected class.
14 Likes
So basically if you’re conservative, you can keep out anyone you want.
1 Like
Rosa’s Cantina in El Paso, TX, has a slightly different policy.
5 Likes
IANAL, but I always thought that was about store/business liability.
ETA: doh. I see now that @bryan and @Melizmatic already mentioned this down thread of the comment I was responding to. Well, great minds, and all that…?
1 Like
Yeah, but I know that you know that Texas isn’t California. 
(You’ve got to love our whimsical federalism!)
eta: I think my dad took all of us there on our way to Houston in 1972.
4 Likes
Welcome to bOING bOING, new happy mutant 
5 Likes
i don’t have strong feelings either way, and am usually 100% pro-footwear. i just think the historical angle is interesting, particularly since it seemed aimed at hippies (or laid-back beach folk). i totally agree with you that from a business liability standpoint, it makes sense to enforce it.
2 Likes
but I suspect most no-makers are either willfully ignorant or just not smart enough to understand.
Makers, on the other hand, will already know this stuff.
Yes, I’m remembering that a lot had to do with Cal-OSHA and insurance liability.
My friends and I always ran around in bare feet even during the very hot San Joaquin summer days and then one year poof…we were required to wear sandals. We hated it.
6 Likes
Too Wordy.
NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO MASK NO SERVICE
1 Like
Lotsa places down here in New Orleans have signs that say just that now. I’m pretty sure they’re provided by the city.
5 Likes
But this bullshit card I downloaded from OwnTheLibsMAGAFuckImmigrants.com says that you can’t refuse me service based on my religious beliefs! It is integral to my religion that I never wear a mask or comply with anything any person says. My religious beliefs are more important than your “public health” hoax! Your failure to let me into your establishment without a mask, shoes, or a shirt constitutes your consent to pay me $10 million in damages.
2 Likes
