It’s a matter of social decorum, not morality. As Malvolio exclaimed in Twelfth Night: “Is there no respect of persons, place nor time in you?” 
You’re wrong. Words mean things. “Pajamas” means “what you wear to bed”. Not “what you wear shopping”. That would be “clothes”.
My thoughts exactly.
Well, my response was just a silly joke (hence the smilies) but if you don’t “get it” you never will.
Pajamas are not necessarily offensive, but they are not street clothes, they are not what some (most?) people consider acceptable attire for public. As was said upthread, banning pajamas is no different than a restaurant mandating a jacket and tie…it is all about appearance and the image a business wants for itself.
People will be treated differently and to a lesser extent will act differently based on what they are wearing. That’s not “right”, but that’s the way it is. It’s the same reason schools, workplaces, court rooms, etc. have dress codes.
That’s ridiculous. If you need to haul out the dictionary to support your point, I’ll point out that pyjamas comes from Hindi words that just mean ‘leg garments’.
What’s ridiculous is thinking that it’s okay to wear bedclothes to the supermarket. Contemplate another word of Hindu origin… “pariah”.
No, just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that it’s opinion. It could just be that you’re wrong.
Many people are of the opinion that AGW is not happening. That doesn’t make it a matter of opinion, because all the facts say they’re wrong.
Then please explain the reason why it’s not OK.
So far, you’ve come up with lots of opinion - I have no problem with opinions but you’re trying hard to present your opinions as objective fact.
It could be. In which case a citation, or several, would support the argument that I am wrong.
A bald assertion that I’m wrong does not.
Is this a reasonable analogy to the topic in hand? AGW is something about which we can reasonably expect to gather facts. The right and wrong of wearing pyjamas, not so much.
What is the objective, definable standard for pyjamas as opposed to “real clothes”?
This isn’t much of an argument: the reason people object is because they can tell the difference, easily. If pyjamas looked just like ordinary pants, no-one would notice or care.
In this case the reason it is not okay is because the supermarket in question does not allow it. For other supermarkets it is not okay because society has accepted standards of appearance. There is nothing morally wrong with wearing your jammies, but it can and will make other people think less of you. That’s all. If you are okay with that, then jammies it is, but if you want to be respected and treated well and thought well of (as in “not a lunatic” or “decent, upstanding citizen”) especially if you are above a certain age, then you’ll have to learn to get dressed before venturing to the market.
I am confused about what you are looking for. “Pajamas” has a definition in English (based on the Persian word, yada, yada, yada, but means a particular thing in English) and weather you consider them sleep-wear or loungewear, a business has the right to declare them inappropriate for that establishment, just as society in general can declare them inappropriate for public. It needn’t be based on your version of “reasonable”.
I’m all for fighting the status quo, railing against societal norms, but you need to realize that is what you are doing. Declaring everyone else wrong based on how you feel about the subject does not promote your cause (of wearing pajamas wherever you go).
Yeah, I agree that people shouldn’t be wearing pajamas to the grocery store. I mean, I’m the kind of guy whose default pant choice is sweatpants, and I was still properly embarrassed about my state of dress when I had no time to do laundry and had to wear pajamas for a day.
First off, of course it is the manager’s/corporate’s decision to ban or not. It’s not, like, a law or anything. So I’m not sure the ‘freedom to be slovenly’ argument holds quite so much weight.
As for why people shouldn’t wear pajamas in public: pajamas are designed for comfort and indoor use. They are built for comfort, in such a way that renders them informal to the point of social unacceptability. Specifically: they’re thinner. They’re often made of unusual fabrics that are not decent in and of themselves. They have holes that (unlike the zipper slot in jeans) are designed to be very difficult to close properly. With jeans, one simply zips the zipper. With pajamas, the only fastener is a small button, if that. And so on. Point being, technically speaking they are not indecent in and of themselves, but a combination of design factors and social expectations renders them so very informal that they become indecent.
If you can easily tell the difference then you should be able to define that difference easily.
Maybe it’s just an image thing. I worked at a very high end hotel in Chicago, it was up there with the Four Seasons and Ritz and a couple of airlines came to our hotel and wanted to put their crews up overnight. I was the revenue manager (reservations) at the time and I told the owner and GM, they were willing to pay rack (at the time $425 and $450) a night per room. (This was an international crew).
Anyway the owner and GM refused saying, “We are an upscale hotel and cannot have people in uniforms being seen checking into our hotel. It doesn’t matter how much they pay, we don’t want that kind of business.”
So maybe it’s similar. They feel people shopping in night clothes will lower their stature.
I can’t belive the article mentions shoes. Even in the 70s I saw signs saying “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” The only place I can think of that let you in without shoes was 7-11 and by the 80s they stopped doing that.
Pyjamas come in a variety of styles. All are intended as sleep or loungewear. They generally differ in material, pattern and design from street wear, usually made of a softer fabric, loose fitting, and with a drawstring or button as fastener rather than a zipper. They are often not worn with underwear.
Really, where are you going with this argument? Everyone knows that PJs don’t look like pants and are not worn like pants.
Noted, but up to here, that doesn’t really help - they’re not allowing it presumably because it’s not OK - which is what we’re trying to drill down into (it certainly won’t help if we just run around in circles. Accepted that it’s ‘their house, their rules’ - but I still think their rules should be able to be subjected to scrutiny and criticism. Noted also that you do actually go on to explain your reasoning, for which I thank you)
I’ve only worn pyjamas a couple of times in public, and then only to parties that were themed fancy dress or pyjama. But this supermarket thing makes me want to go shopping in PJs (except that I’d have to buy some PJs in order to do that)
Dictionary thing wasn’t my idea. I don’t think it’s a particularly useful tool either way in this discussion.
I’m not the one declaring people wrong. I don’t think people are wrong. I think they’re just pointlessly uptight.
I think there is a point to having standards of social decorum. I’m quite willing to fight such standards where they are oppressive or trample on legitimate rights, but really - it isn’t too much to ask shoppers to wear pants and shoes, is it?
I apologize if I misunderstood you then. “Pointlessly uptight” I can work with. 
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people to refrain from indecent exposure, but I do think it’s pointless trying to specify the manner in which they achieve that. Pyjamas are not offensive - if anything, I’d say they were disarming. I cannot imagine feeling threatened by a normal-looking person wearing pyjamas.
I only have one set of pyjamas which I only wear if I’m staying away from home, and they don’t look much like pyjamas* (they’re drawstring, but have no fly). My wife has several pairs of casual trousers that look more like pyjamas than my pyjamas - and I have several pairs of drawstring jogging pants that I’d be more self-conscious wearing in public than my PJ pants.
There really isn’t as clear a distinction as I think people would like there to be.
*(which is why I said I’d have to buy some if I wanted to conspicuously wear pyjamas in public)