This is actually an anti-hippie thing that started in the 60s and 70s. Hippies ran around barefoot. Many people and business owners hated hippies and everything about them, including going barefoot.
I was one of those hippies who went everywhere barefoot. The claim that it was about health was BS. Claiming it's against the law to go barefoot in restaurants is also BS. They just didn't like barefoot hippies.
Something you don't see any more are signs saying "No Backpacks". This was also an anti-hippie thing. It mainly targeted hitch hikers who wore backpacks.
Hahahahahhaa this is hilarious but I can definitely see the logic here. Like yeah, I think given the same mental framework, this does constitute as discrimination. I think that’s why liberals need to be careful. Once you open a door it can serve as precedence for a lot of stuff most normal people wouldn’t have thought possible.
Opinion
9Opinion
u The distinction which is made by some is that someone cannot change from being homosexual to being heterosexual; it is an immutable characteristic over which that person exercised no choice. (Whether that statement is true is a different debate.) Restaurants don't ban nudists; they simply ban people who don't wear clothes. All nudists wear clothing at times and any nudist can quickly gain admission to a restaurant simply by getting dressed.
Businesses, while it will differ a little country to country, generally have the right to discriminate on pretty much any basis that isn't race. A business would be fully entitled to demand all customers wear or do not wear a certain article of clothing. Or to demand that all customers have this or that sexual orientation, gender or religion.
All of this we already see frequently in practice in clubs, pubs and alike. You could probably easily name examples of these types of discrimination with most people feeling it is fully justified.
What can not be discriminated against is usually outlined in the nation's laws of protected classes (or something as such). And again tends to be limited to race/skin color as far as I know.
It's not discrimination. It's called being courteous to others (Not everyone wants to see others naked! Natural or not).
Not to mention, not wearing shoes, clothes, or nudity can be considered a health risk, not only to the facility and the people there, but the person exposing his or herself as well. What if they get injured or hurt while there because they chose not to wear clothes? Or their body parts that are exposes spread an ailment or sickness to others because the facility was unaware said person had a condition?
I may be paranoid, but as someone that works in the healthcare field? I know what the human body is capable of carrying and being exposed to. There is a good reason for signs like that exist in public places! For the facility and public's safety and well being.
Yeah, they have a right to be naked... in places that accommodate or accept them being that way.
I actually support the right for businesses to discriminate in all forms because the free market already imposes costs of its own.
It isn't discrimination based on private establishment. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as they are privately backed.
Those signs make me laugh, didn’t say you had to wear pants or shorts to get service. Just make sure you have a shirt and shoes on lol
Because it's a health hazard and there aren't that many nudists
Also they would get arrested before they even made it to the store
That's why they have nudist resorts
Nope. Nudism isn't a religion; trying to claim it as such will fail. There's a list of reasons one cannot discriminate, and "lifestyle" isn't on it.
Nope. It’s called general courtesy. And businesses reserve the right to refuse service to those improperly dressed.
Yes, it is.
Discrimination is fine.
No it’s not
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions