Why did this come about?
Was it becasue a lot of establishments back in the sixties didn’t want those hippies in their stores or restaurants?
Or is it truly a health hazard?
Is this a riddle?
Are you talking about dress codes in restaurants?
I’ve always liked those signs. Right up there with “This door is alarmed”. 
No riddle.
Yes, back when I was little, you could go into a store (not just a restaurant) without shoes.
Now, you cannot go into a store without shoes.
Why would one go outdoors without shoes? Modern cities aren’t exactly barefoot-friendly to begin with, right?
But to answer the question: I could see how walking barefoot wouldn’t be desirable from a store or restaurant owners point of view. I mean, where have those feet been?
The shoes part, I imagine, is because there might just be something on the floor that would be dangerous to a bare foot (unnoticed broken glass or plate shard, dropped fork, etc.).
The shirt part, IMO, is because some people just look gross uncovered. The sight of hairy man-breasts would make me lose my appetite. :D:D
Same place as the shoes I guess
And what would they say if you turned up wearing just shoes and a shirt?
My favorite sign –
‘Shirts and shoes required, bras and panties optional’
Colin,
Please go ahead and try that.
Report back to us and let us know how it worked.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Colin Wilkinson *
**
I guess, literally, there is nothing wrong with doing this. Maybe someone should try it (unless it hasn’t been tried already? :eek: ).
Didn’t they do that on Jackass?
It was done in a beer commercial some months back. The guy, IIRC, wore his khaki shorts as a shirt.
The end of the commercial, he dropped a quarter.
They did it on Jackass too.
I was asked to leave a grocery store when an employee noticed I wasn’t wearing shoes (summer day, just down the street, I was just running in and out for one thing) - no posted signs, but I was arrogantly told it was “common knowledge” … well perhaps. I think it has to do mostly with maintaining an “appearance” of cleanliness and business-like. It’s pretty obvious that if you’re not wearing shoes you’ll be much more careful of where you are walking (no treading over dog crap, broken glass, and through little puddles of God-knows-what that you don’t even notice when wearing shoes), and you’ll most likely track in LESS dirt and nasties. You might have some disease on your feet, but as long as you don’t get up and walk through the produce what’s the big deal? No one ever insists that you wash your hands before coming in, which is likely to be the biggest source of contamination - after all you put on and remove your shoes with your hands, pick your nose, scrath your balls, etc… As for shirts, AWB has it I think. Most guys who go topless aren’t perfect physical specimens, and don’t care anyways. Your store will LOOK professional and sanitary if everyone in it is fully clothed.
The shoe thing is simple: it’s to keep you from stepping on something that will damage your bare feet and give you an excuse to sue the pants off the store for your own stupidity.
So did stores get sued all the time before this rule came into effect?
Were there massive foot injuries?
Before the laws about wearing shirt/shoes, lawsuits regarding same may not have been common but the problem is they are much more likely to occur now and business proprietors must take measures to protect themselves.
Times change and we make laws to adjust. 40 or so years ago, boys were buying guns out of a Sears catalog and taking them to school on the bus or walking down the street with them and no one cared. Amazingly, no school shootings or other mass mayhem went on. Guns are harder to get now but our schools are less safe.
Not to hijack this thread or get into a debate on guns, just illustrating a point. People behave differently now and lots of lawsuits are being introduced that people of earlier generations wouldn’t have considered.
Businesses need to protect themselves against the people of today.
I thought the no shirt no shoes in restuarants was a health code.
For what it’s worth, I found a web page that claims to debunk the “health code” and “liability” arguments:
http://www.barefooters.org/key-works/case_for/2.discrimination.html#2.2
“Having bare feet in public or in a place of business open to the public (including restaurants) is not against any health department regulation in any state the authors are aware of”
Obviously I should not that this is from an advocacy piece.
My husband once made me go to a restaurant wearing just shirt & shoes. Fortunately, it was a men’s dress shirt, but that’s another story . . .
The shoes advocates can give any kind of health or safety reason they want, but it’s just an excuse. The real reason is that shoes are considered a part of being properly and decently dressed. To go barefoot can be one or more of the following: a breach of etiquette, a sign of disrespect, or an insult.
(I once answered the door–my OWN door–to my f-i-l while I was barefoot. The disapproval I got could’ve frozen Hell over.)
What breaknrun said about times being different is true, but it’s not just times but places as well. In some countries, such as Thailand, WEARING shoes at an inappropriate time can be considered a mortal insult. You are compelled by decorum to remove your shoes in temples and in the presence of high ranking individuals, for example.
On the other hand, imagine meeting the POTUS sans shoes. Intriguing difference, isn’t it?