This message was self-deleted by its author

[marble falls]

This message was self-deleted by its author (marble falls) on Sat Apr 18, 2020, 03:16 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[customerserviceguy]

1. If you don't like the dress code, don't go there

If a business owner has the right to tell someone not to bring a firearm, even though it would be legal under that locality's laws, then they have the right to dictate what you wear, too, as a condition of service.

[marble falls]

5. No one ever killed anyone with a brimless hat or backless sandals.

[Sneederbunk]

10. +1

[obamanut2012]

13. Says someone in a class that these codes will never be directed at

And, wrong: dress codes can had have been legally found as being discriminatory. But, your privilege means you didn't know that, and even now don't care.

The above "code" is sooooo obviously directed at urban black and latino men.

[customerserviceguy]

23. Oh, good

Play the "privilege card" here, when this is a nice restaurant that doesn't want anybody coming in who dresses like a slob. Do you mean to say that no people of color can dress up well enough to eat here?

[Beakybird]

27. You make an interesting point.

Even though the dress code might be ethically wrong, it might be legal. I think this dress code is different from just wanting people to dress more formally. It looks like they want to keep black people out, so I would hope that even if this is legal, that significant pressure is brought upon the owners to change this policy.

[customerserviceguy]

32. If it doesn't refer

to a protected status (race, gender, etc.) then it most likely is legal. I have worked with and seen plenty of people of color whose sartorial skills are more than sufficient to pass muster under this dress code.

It's no more offensive than, "No shirt, no shoes, no service". That simply attempts to say, "We're not a poolside tiki bar place." This dress code says, "We're not McDonalds, or even Denny's".

Stuffy, perhaps, but that is their right to be that way.

[LanternWaste]

41. It does not follow.

"...has the right to tell someone not to bring a firearm... then they have the right to dictate what you wear."

Also known as the 'non-sequitur'. What you present as a legal parallel (though unsourced, of course) as evidence adds too little to support your conclusion. Your questionable premise leads to a questionable conclusion.

[customerserviceguy]

48. OK

Maybe a bit over the top with that one, but how about the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" situation that we've all seen?

[marble falls]

4. Even if the dress code seems written to discourage a class of people? ...

PoC are employed there but not encouraged to eat here.

[PTWB]

8. I think it's offensive to suggest that PoC are incapable of dressing in an upscale manner.

A formal restaurant ought to have a dress code.

[Takket]

9. EXACTLY!

Last edited Sun Sep 22, 2019, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

and it isn't even all that "upscale". You can wear a hat, just turn it forward. You can wear a t-shirt, just don't have offensive words on it. Not like they are requiring a suit and tie! And so what if they were? It is their business!

Places like disney world i know as well don't allow offensive t-shirts in the parks. Are they racist? Do all blacks wear t-shirts with offensive words on them?

[obamanut2012]

14. whooooosh

[marble falls]

17. I think its racist to think that PoC need to live up to a white standard of "upscale"!!!

[former9thward]

53. It is racist to suggest dressing decently is "white".

[fishwax]

49. maybe, but I don't think anybody is actually suggesting that

[virgogal]

35. What thing in that list

applies to PoC only ?

[marble falls]

36. What do you think PoC are the most concerned about? Why do you think PoC ...

have concerns about this list?

[Alea]

51. It's a fair question and you should answer it.

[marble falls]

52. Tip toe around it, but it is racist.

[Takket]

3. this seems silly to me

the rules are pretty generic and if they want their clientele to look nice that is their business and people don't have to go there if they don't want to comply.

The part about the boots is especially absurd. Whites don't wear work-boots? Ridiculous. EVERYONE who works in construction wears work-boots, their employers REQUIRE it.

[JonLP24]

7. When I saw the ban on work boots

I was thinking of Timberlands. To me it is obvious especially in a city like Baltimore.

[obamanut2012]

15. Yup, the only one not getting this

Either live some0lace very, very white or no exactly what this is, and don't care.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. "Managament may enforce these policies at its discretion" is really the giveaway here.

"Inappropriate language or attire" is a close second.

[Polybius]

11. It looks like it's pretty equal

Seems to not affect one group specifically, but many. I'm ok with it.

[obamanut2012]

16. Yeah, you are completely wrong

It is very obvious.

[Polybius]

18. Hmm, let's see:

No gym clothes, sweats, hunting boots, back packs, e-cigs. If anything that affects mostly white youths. Yes, the first few affect mostly minorities, but it balances out a bit. Looks like they want clean-cut, preppy-looking customers only that are dressed to impress.

I worked at a place that listed "no durags" on their sign. I think that's worse, because they didn't list other things.

[obamanut2012]

12. All non-military dress codes are classist and elitist, and most

Are racist and sexist.

"Don't like it, don't go there" attitudes are also classist, elitist, and (at best) uninformed.

on edit: it is VERY obvious this restaurant's "dress code" is slanted against young, urban black men. I doubt very much if a chubby white men wearing his belt many inches under his actual waist would be denied entrance.

WTF is a "brimless hat" anyway? I guess doorags. Does that also include women's brimless headwear?

[marble falls]

19. this:

[Polybius]

20. Could this be considered a brimless hat?

If yes, the owner probably considers the guy in the pic seedy looking.

[MicaelS]

34. Utter hogwash.

Are you saying that people entering a place where food is prepared and eaten should be allowed to come in shirtless and bare foot?

Are you saying that people in food prep should not be required to wear hairnets and facial hair guard.

After all you did say ALL.

[cwydro]

21. Weird. I've seen white kids with backwards baseball caps.

I’ve seen white people wearing work boots, team jerseys, and athletic wear.

I actually agree with the pants being worn as they should. I hate seeing people’s underwear; I dont care what their race is.

I agree with no vulgar and inappropriate language or attire. I really see no reason for that in public.

[LuvNewcastle]

42. Same here.

I don't see anything race-specific in these rules. Maybe it's a local thing, but I see plenty of white people around here who break these 'rules.'

[Blue_true]

22. This thread reenforces in my mind why we have a monumental task ahead of us in regards

to racial harmony and elimination of discrimination. First off, we call things discrimination that likely are not, second we can't talk about issues without running for our swords and bulwarks, lastly no one is willing to give up some of their most sacred cows. Improvement requires some sacrifice, it is as simple as that.

[The Mouth]

24. Never

[marble falls]

25. Except in this case.

[Bettie]

26. The "no book bags or backpacks"

one is confusing to me. The way it is written though, makes it pretty clear that they only want well-off white customers.

Hopefully, they will have a lot fewer customers overall.

[milestogo]

50. I usually see that posted in convenience stores that are near high schools.

Translation: They don't want a few dozen noisy teenagers taking over the place during the lunch hour.

The implication could be that teens are more likely to shoplift, but I think the general idea is "We don't want all of you in here at once (because you're noisy, you don't spend much money, you don't know when to leave, and you'll scare away our adult customers)."

[FBaggins]

28. Wrong question. Dress codes are always discrimination

The real question is whether that discrimination is inappropriately predicated. I don't see anything over that line here. It actually looks pretty tame for a supposedly upscale restaurant. Jerseys on game days? Baseball caps? Sweatpants prior to 10pm?

[MineralMan]

29. They're basically banning all youths in the evening hours.

They're trying to attract adults during those hours, it looks like to me, by excluding young people. It won't work.

[TygrBright]

30. oooh! OOOHH!! I think I know this one!!

It's discrimination when people who have suffered systemic discrimination FEEL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

They're the ones who would know.

Those who haven't suffered systemic discrimination don't have any real way of relating to that experience, so their job is to LISTEN to the people who have suffered systemic discrimination, and work together to eliminate it, based on the people who HAVE suffered it and are thus aware of what its effects are.

Did I get that one right?

I'd be sure about it if it was misogyny 'cause I'm experienced in that one. This one, not so much, so I have to rely on others.

curiously,
Bright

[marble falls]

33. Nothing like experiance to inform ones opinion.

[Thomas Hurt]

31. Well lets see as a 50 plus white dude...

I have done about half of those on list......just not at a expensive restaurant. I don't go to expensive restaurants unless it is for a business dinner.

Sagging pants not my thing.
I have never vaped and won't
I am not into berets.
I don't wear jerseys, not that big a fan of any sports celeb.

I wear my baseball cap backwards sometimes, have worn gym clothes to various stores, basketball shorts, hunting boots, cowboy boots, oh yeah. I have worn a t shirt or two back in my teens that might have been rude. I carried a backpack though my school years and on and off till today.

I have on occasion used profanity in public.

Looks to me like it is directed at poor kids and other "riff raff" who might darken the doors of their high class e. stablisment.

Somehow I don't think they would turn away Beiber or Miley if they showed up.

[marble falls]

37. "Somehow I don't think they would turn away Beiber or Miley if they showed up. "

Good point.

[Hekate]

38. Often seen: "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."

And?

[marble falls]

43. That's a health code requirement not a dress code issue.

[jayfish]

39. Interesting That They Singled Out Electronic Cigarettes But Make No Mention...

of cigarettes or cigars. Big tobacco wins again!

[marble falls]

44. They might even sell cigars there.

[Hekate]

46. Is California the only state that forbids indoor smoking? Because, NO ONE in Calif needs ...

...to have it spelled out about cigarettes and cigars. Vapers are the only people who need to be told.

[Kali]

40. I live in rural white america

and I can tell who that dress code is meant to exclude. holy shit, people!

[912gdm]

54. same. I live in red state hell and easily read between those lines.

thats targeting 'urban' youth

[meadowlander]

45. Always unless it's for health and safety reasons.

The real problem is that class discrimination is completely acceptable to most Americans.

[fishwax]

47. "Baseball hats must be worn forward"

Because baseball caps and upscale dress codes are a natural fit, as long as they're worn facing forward

The idea that some white folks, too, like to wear some of these things isn't particularly relevant. Based on that notion, any bigot could get away with a laundry list of the most blatant and damaging stereotypes because, after all soandso's grandma also loves x, and she's white; and soandso has seen lots of white kids doing y, so hiw could it be racist?