I get you, Board. What I said was if I were unreasonable, I could have sued. I was at fault, not them. I am a reasonable person. I accept my responsibility in it all. I kept my trap shut and went on about my business.
Just wanted to make sure nobody was getting ideas that businesses were exposing themselves to increased liability by allowing barefoot customers in.
I'm in the middle of a project trying to gain acceptance of bare feet in a very large city owned/non-profit managed gated park w/ admission fee. Currently the brochure demands shirt and shoes.
I ran a 5K there in '10 and had no problem with the festivities afterwards. I ran the same race in '11 and was denied the food, drinks, music, and awards ceremony initialy because I was shoeless. It took three layers of rank before they finaly let me in, but I never received blanket permission for '12 which is what I was working towards.
I may not be able to run because of my cervical arthritis, and walking is slow because of my metatarsal/phalangial arthritis, but if allowed in the park barefoot two weeks from now for the Arthritis Walk I plan on not only attending, but walking the route barefoot wearing the hat reserved for the arthritic participants.
The Chief of the park promised an answer by Tuesday. Since this is a fundraiser for arthritis I informed him I that I will have to know by then whether or not to return the money to the donors that are sponsoring me for this walk.
We'll see.
I'm in the middle of a project trying to gain acceptance of bare feet in a very large city owned/non-profit managed gated park w/ admission fee. Currently the brochure demands shirt and shoes.
I ran a 5K there in '10 and had no problem with the festivities afterwards. I ran the same race in '11 and was denied the food, drinks, music, and awards ceremony initialy because I was shoeless. It took three layers of rank before they finaly let me in, but I never received blanket permission for '12 which is what I was working towards.
I may not be able to run because of my cervical arthritis, and walking is slow because of my metatarsal/phalangial arthritis, but if allowed in the park barefoot two weeks from now for the Arthritis Walk I plan on not only attending, but walking the route barefoot wearing the hat reserved for the arthritic participants.
The Chief of the park promised an answer by Tuesday. Since this is a fundraiser for arthritis I informed him I that I will have to know by then whether or not to return the money to the donors that are sponsoring me for this walk.
We'll see.
The most interesting thing was that this wasn't the first time that I've experience discrimination at the Running Room. About 6 years ago when my daughter was just a baby I asked to teach a stroller clinic, and the manager told me "no". When I asked why I got the excuse that he wouldn't allow it because I'm a man.
I should have fought that one a little more in retrospect, as this is actually against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms....
I keep hearing a lot of talk that a business owner should be able to decide who enters their place of business. As a society we have had to create laws to stop or at least limit this practice. Those changes came about through protests and acts of civil disobedience. Barefooters are left with the same options.
Good for you, Board. I mean how ironic, right? That you are suffering from the very condition that they are sponsoring, yet prohibiting you from taking part in the only way you can. Now THAT is discrimination, exclusionary, and THAT p!sses me off!
Don't confuse a business owner's right to set a dress code or code of conduct with the laws protecting against discrimination based on race, religion, creed, gender, etc.
More than once a small business assistant to the assistant manager has told me " We can refuse service to anyone we want to for any reason whatsoever", to which lately I've been responding with "That's not entirely true......you can't refuse to serve me just because I'm Jewish, and you can't refuse to serve me just because I happen to be an attorney"
Works every time!
The self appointed shoe police don't take the time to wonder if I was just speaking hypotheticaly or not.
Acts of civil disobedience won't work for barefooters. There are too few of us, and the passersby will not for the most part be sympathetic. Among the ranks of barefoot runners we have more than a few that are against going into establishments barefoot....what can we expect from the public at large?
Thanks for replying with a well thought out response. I understand what you are saying about dress code, but I disagree that the barefoot should be a violation of dress code. If barefooters don't demand change and follow up with action, then nothing will change. Shoes are ingrained in Western culture, so it will be a long and hard struggle.
I do find it interesting that barefoot runners would not be supportive of full time barefooters.
I do find it interesting that barefoot runners would not be supportive of full time barefooters.
support can come in many forms and mulitple perspectives. Also, disagreeing on legal code/opinions does not necessairly equate to not supporting either.
Not defending any answers, just sayin
Yes, support can come in different forms, this is true. What I was trying to express is that people who run barefoot know the advantages of walking and running while barefoot, so why would they be against someone spending more time without shoes?
I also don't understand why full time barefooters should be expected to take and accept "discrimination". The only way change will come is if they speak out and demand equal access. I guess they should do this while putting their best foot forward.
I also don't understand why full time barefooters should be expected to take and accept "discrimination". The only way change will come is if they speak out and demand equal access. I guess they should do this while putting their best foot forward.
BRS member Ahcuah wrote about a court case from the 70's in which a woman refused to leave a restaurant when told to do so by an employee because she was barefoot.
Very interesting legal case that discusses the right to be barefoot or not. (she lost though).
It was published in his blog this past December, and can be viewed here:
http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/how-judges-cheat-part-1/
Very interesting legal case that discusses the right to be barefoot or not. (she lost though).
It was published in his blog this past December, and can be viewed here:
http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/how-judges-cheat-part-1/
If laws could be written so that people can be allowed to go anywhere they wanted barefoot, without discrimination, yet prevent people who become injured, by their own fault, from suing the establishments they barefoot in, I'd be all for that.
The problem is that gets pretty tricky. What if an establishment had rigidly mounted razor-sharp pieces of metal positioned in a way that the side of someones foot would become sliced if they were to graze it. The barefoot person is only at slightly more risk than the sandal user, and the establishment should be clearly at fault.
The laws should really be written and interpreted as laying fault where it truly lies.
If a customer shattered some glass minutes before a barefoot person entered a store should the owner be held liable? Of course not. If the customer did it on purpose to sabatage the barefooter should they be responsible for injury if it occured? Why not!
Our legal system is indeed in need of repair, and unfortunatly many store owners believe that they will be held responsible for barefooter's injuries regardless of the situation.
Case histories do prove otherwise though, that's one reason I carry a copy of Dr. Howell's book with me at least in my car or bike. When the person who's really in charge reads a page or two from a real book written by a real PhD and finds out otherwise, it's easy to make a convincing case.
BTW, it's only right to point out here that the legal cases mentioned in Dr. Howell's book were for the most part culled from the BRS's own Ahcuah's archives with his permission of course.
The laws should really be written and interpreted as laying fault where it truly lies.
If a customer shattered some glass minutes before a barefoot person entered a store should the owner be held liable? Of course not. If the customer did it on purpose to sabatage the barefooter should they be responsible for injury if it occured? Why not!
Our legal system is indeed in need of repair, and unfortunatly many store owners believe that they will be held responsible for barefooter's injuries regardless of the situation.
Case histories do prove otherwise though, that's one reason I carry a copy of Dr. Howell's book with me at least in my car or bike. When the person who's really in charge reads a page or two from a real book written by a real PhD and finds out otherwise, it's easy to make a convincing case.
BTW, it's only right to point out here that the legal cases mentioned in Dr. Howell's book were for the most part culled from the BRS's own Ahcuah's archives with his permission of course.
So, if the store posts "walk in here barefoot at your own risk" and/or I hand them a signed waiver stating I will not hold them liable for any injuries I may incur in their store, while barefoot -then is everybody covered???
I would think as more cases of people with foot ailments related to shoddedness come to light, denying barefooters access could be ruled an illegal form of discrimination, similar to other physical handicaps/challenges. In the meantime, persuasion and education are our best tools. Since I barefoot by preference, not necessity, I have a pair of Luna Sandals (very nice, but still footwear) in the car for back-up, in case I'm unable to convince a busy-body clerk of their ignorance. If possible, I try to talk to the manager and have some Primal Alliance cards to hand out. If that fails, and it's not too inconvenient, I boycott the business from then on. It's a pretty timid politics, I know, but it's about as much as I'm prepared to do. I'm more concerned about the police state being put into place at the moment.
[I'm not an attorney so take this with a grain of salt.]
I think Longboard is right on. People can and do discriminate legally all day long. We can discriminate for any reason - as long as that reason isn't specifically called out in the law as a reason you're not allowed to discriminate. (race, religion, gender, etc.) Airlines certainly discriminate against people with eyesight problems. If I owned a store I could turn down the face-tatooed applicant solely because that person doesn't convey the image I want to have for my store. And people who say they should not be fired when they're injured and have a note from their doctor, I believe in most states, are wrong. Employers generally can fire someone for whatever reason they want (even if it's just "I don't like them.") unless that reason is specifically protected.
I still find fascinating this belief in our society that barefoot is unhealthy. Just yesterday I was in the shoe department at REI. I overheard an exchange between a customer and a sales associate. The associate made a comment that some people wear the shoe being looked at without socks. The customer said "Am I allowed to try them on without socks?" The associate said that she could. It's quite odd: People walk around in a store in shoes - bringing in all kinds of nasties from outside, yet when someone takes off their shoes, it's considered unhealthy. In the words of that great American Estelle Costanza: "IT'S INSANITY!"
Jim
In lawsuits against establihments by barefooters the judges have treated the situation as if those two conditions listed above were intact and valid, even though they did'nt exist and would hold very little legal power even if they were.
So yes, the sign and waiver SHOULD protect everyone, but the reality is that even with those two conditions met the owner could still be found liable, but never is in a court of law even without the sign or waiver when a barefooter sues.
"The person was idiotic enough to go in there barefoot? And is complaining that they got hurt? Everyone get the he11 out of my courtroom and stop wasting my time, I'm going to lunch" is the typical judge's decision.
