Pretty much this. There are restaurants here in town that won’t let me in without a tie. Same deal. The business wants to cater to a certain kind of clientele and have an appropriate corporate image and a brand association that fits that image. Fair enough.
Totally agreed. If you’re not a serious contender for the Olympic swim team, no speedos for you!
Two words why we don’t wear pajamas out shopping - societal norms. You can rail against them and you can ignore them, but they still exist.
If you’re covered and Mr. Winky or Ms. Cutesy Name For the Female Bits aren’t popping out, you have met all societal norms on the subject.
If you’re at the beach, sure. If you’re at the supermarket, not so much. Do you perhaps not understand what “societal norms” actually means? If you saw a guy in a speedo at the supermarket, would you think that was normal?
The consensus is I think against that opinion. Maybe someday societal norms will change, and merely covering the genitals will be enough (no matter how), but right now I suspect the vast majority of people feel that proper clothing is not optional for shopping - at least, without egregiously offending others.
Maybe for very broad definitions of “societal norms”, as this thread alone would seem to indicate. It is not “normal” in our society (and I am using “our” very broadly too) to shop in swimwear; it is not “normal” to shop in a prom dress either. Both can be done, often without incident; but both are outside of “societal norms” simply because we (society) say they are.
No, I would not. On the flip side if I were at one of Europe’s nudist resorts like Le Village Naturiste in France I would wonder what the hell the fully clothed guy was doing shopping.
Ummm. . .yeah, it kinda does. Though I’m all for ya bein happy and all.
Probably trying to pick up some naked.
I understand people are saying it’s offensive, I just don’t think it makes any sense. I mean, why not ban ugly people from the store? - surely an ugly bloke in a suit is more offensive to the eye than an attractive person in clean, decent pyjamas.
Because making oneself “not ugly” isn’t quite as easy as taking 30 seconds out of your life to put on some real clothes. It’s also not an objective, definable standard. What you consider ugly, I may consider beautiful, but pajamas are always pajamas and never clothes, it’s not really a matter of opinion.
Well, OK, ugly people could put a bag over their head - that’s even quicker.
It is, and it’s your opinion. I disagree with you - therefore it really is a matter of opinion.
I never wear pajamas to go out, and I still think it’s silly. If you’re completely covered, I really don’t care what you’re covered by. Nor do I give a rat’s ass whether the pants you’re wearing are a plaid flannel or denim. Hell, I couldn’t even tell you whether I’ve noticed someone in the grocery store with pajamas, and I certainly wouldn’t begrudge someone running in first thing in the morning for cold meds.
It’s their store and they can do what they like, but I think it’s silly. Is the pajama-wearing set that huge a problem?
Well, let’s think about this one…
hh
Well, there’s the slovenly aspect, v. the underdressed aspect. Who wants their establishment to be frequented by a bunch of shopping cart ladies, who collect cats and don’t bathe? Sure, there’s nothing wrong with not bathing, and the money of the bathless is just as good as that of the clean, but, well, who needs it? It may work well in the seedier areas, but that’s not the target market.
Also, style aside, is the message sent. I think it’s a cop-out if we use the ‘message sent’ meme too often, but, I believe that it’s valid, in this instance. One of the main edifices of retail marketing rests on the message sent. What messages are the bums receiving? “Do whatever you want, in here. This place is a craphole! Need to take a whiz? Use the aisle. Urinating is a natural function, why all of the Victorian modesty? Wanna do some upskirting? This is the place! Grab the Razr!”
Additionally, as a general rule, pajamas are not as sturdily built as swimwear, or other casual wear, and it’s not meant to be out in public clothing; in fact, it was designed for non-public use. Sure, everybody has some story about some great athletic events in their lingerie, etc…(what the elephant was doing…nevermind) but as a general rule…
That’s about all I got.
hh
It would be way too hard to enforce. The ugly people in nice clothes will always have someone piping up about how they aren’t so ugly, or they think they aren’t ugly or some other excuse…but anyone can tell if they are wearing pajamas so there’s no way to argue your way out of it. 
True story. I was once shopping, in Tescos no less, in November, when I saw another shopper wearing nothing but one of those all in one lycra things they swim/row in, and flipflops. I was just puzzling why someone would even want to wear that garb in England in November when I realised it was Sir Steve Redgrave
I guess he gets a pass.
But that still doesn’t explain why pyjamas are inherently offensive. I don’t think this is a reasoned policy at all - it’s just one store - it seems to me more like a local manager imposing his/her own sense of morality on customers.
I look at it as more a business decision. I would vote with my wallet and go to a store that made a policy that I agree with. And I agree with this no PJ thing.
Back when anti-smoking laws were being discussed, my area tried to make all bars nonsmoking. I do not use tobacco and I would prefer a bar to be no smoking. But I do not want a law that requires it. I helped a friend (who owns a bar) fight the law.
Once the law was repealed, my friend made his bar no smoking. He and I were both cool with that.
Often, one’s concern about being offended is overridden by other folk’s rights. Some people may hate the sight of the ugly, but that is simply too bad - they have to suck it up, because tolerating the ugly is part of the price they pay for living in society. The ugly cannot help being ugly, and they have the right to shop, too.
OTOH, if you wish to crusade for the rights of those who are incapable of putting on pants, be my guest. 
Putting on proper clothing is a minimal impact on a person’s rights. Sure, it is an infringement on liberty, but it is a very small one, and so in most people’s eyes it is worth the infringement in the name of decorum.