Comments on Barefoot and Grounded .com: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Barefootedness

My heart is still racing. Dubbing myself a fellow...

2011-10-20T12:21:56.335-05:00

My heart is still racing. Dubbing myself a fellow barefoot advocate, I have been writing & e-mailing to businesses displaying the infamous “Shoes & Shirt required by law” sign, informing them that there is no such law. I can’t believe it happened. I finally got a reply. The first in a year. It was a phone call from SaveMart/Lucky/Foodmax Customer Service. She thanked me for bringing the issue to their attention, and they have taken the sign down. My jaw is still on the floor. I’m going over there right now to buy something. (And to see if they really did take the sign down).

A barefoot protection law is definitely needed. Th...

2011-09-20T02:50:39.264-05:00

A barefoot protection law is definitely needed. The current state of affairs is simply atrocious, with provably incorrect claims and obvious personal bias ruling. Unfortunately, there is little chance of such a law passing at a state level, and none at a federal level. Perhaps cities or counties, but few people pay much attention to those.

The US needs much better protection of individuals from businesses in general. The concept of a "dress code," for example, should be specific, not exclusive or general; ie, "you must wear a suit, tie, dress shoes...," and not, "no shoes no shirt no service." Such vague policies allow businesses to mistreat anyone they dislike, for any reason. It is simple discrimination and it is really sad to see going unchecked in the claimed “land of the free.”

People who claim their policies are due to a law or health code should be held legally liable for fraud. Indeed, they may be already in some cases. Claiming your practices are caused by others out of ignorance or spite is not acceptable, as it makes it difficult for many to address the real issues.

The problem is ultimately that the vast majority has a preconceived notion, and is willing to say anything to justify it. Bare feet do not fit in the American worldview, and so those who want to be barefoot are seen as outsiders.

It would be great if the government can create a l...

2011-07-21T11:32:24.816-05:00

It would be great if the government can create a law that prohibits businesses from posting signs saying shoes required by order of the health department. This would certainly make national news, and would once and for all bust this myth from the minds of millions of people! This would go a long way toward reducing discrimination against barefooters.

“Our country was founded on the basic principle of...

2011-07-11T10:54:29.204-05:00

“Our country was founded on the basic principle of having the rights to say and do as you please (so long as it is within the law).”

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” – Thomas Jefferson

:)

The danger, of course, is that pushing for barefoo...

2011-07-01T20:54:12.977-05:00

The danger, of course, is that pushing for barefoot rights will give the shoe police the opportunity to codify rules against barefooting. But given the choice between doing nothing and waiting years for a cultural shift, or taking a more active approach with the potential for setbacks, I say let's take the risk. The science is on our side, and our numbers are growing.

Michael, I think it would be a good idea to get n...

2011-07-01T07:47:34.098-05:00

Michael,

I think it would be a good idea to get national publicity about your quest for barefoot rights. This would encourage others that are supportive of this to join the fight.

Publicity would also be a good opportunity for you to speak out about other barefoot issues such as safety, liability, health codes myths, and others. While you're at it, you should mention the Primalfoot Alliance web site and The Barefoot Book. I'm sure that getting this information out to the public will greatly improve barefoot acceptance in our society. The vast majority of people don't go to barefoot advocacy web sites to learn about barefoot issues, so it needs to be pushed to them. Even if you are unsuccesful in getting any law passed to protect barefooters, good publicity will be a major step forward.

Dear Michael, I actually did read it correctly. ...

2011-06-30T18:39:13.403-05:00

Dear Michael,

I actually did read it correctly. I just wanted to re-emphasize this point in my own words, because I feel that this is a critical point.

When barefooters fight for their rights, many of them argue that "this is America and I should have the right to dress as I please, as long as I'm not offending anyone." While I agree with this for the most part, many Americans simply don't see it this way and never will, so the argument fails to make a difference. The prejudice level of many people against bare feet is so deep that they can never have a rational view of bare feet in public. Therefore, I am glad that you are taking a different approach, emphasizing the health issues involved which should make sense to lawmakers. If a law to protect barefooters becomes a reality, I'm sure that many people will start to go barefoot, and those that hate barefooters will get used to it and thus stop discriminating against us.

Anyway, good luck with your pursuit of this matter in the legal field. If you are succesul in getting some kind of law to protect barefoot rights, you will be a hero!

To my readers: I typically don't respond to c...

2011-06-30T15:48:22.612-05:00

To my readers:

I typically don't respond to comments left on my posts, but I felt that a follow-up to the above comment was necessary.

Either "Anonymous" didn't fully read my post or didn't fully understand what I was saying. He/she wrote...

"The emphasis should be on health, otherwise the lawmakers will say that if they protect bare feet they must also protect going shirtless anywhere, which they will not accept."

That's, essentially, what I said - just not in those exact terms. To respond, I'll quote this very blog entry:

"Just as laws have been established to protect the biological functions of breastfeeding women and their babies, laws should be put in place to protect the biomechanical functions of bare feet. It's the right thing to do. Realize that dress codes dictating what kind of pants can't be worn or prohibiting certain kinds of hats is not in the same vain as this issue. This is a matter directly related to protecting key systems of the human body."

Yes, readers, all aspects of health, biomechanics, biology, etc. will be addressed. It will be made very clear that this issue transcends dress code. This isn't about *what kind* of clothing someone wears, this is about whether or not it is right for that clothing to be required in the first place.

I assert that shirts and shoes - though usually lumped together on gas station windows - are not biomechanically equal. By wearing a shirt a person is not going to lose their ability to breathe. Maybe the closest thing that WOULD cause that is a corset. And if a restaurant or business required corsets, I'd be equally upset. By requiring shoes, however, establishments dictate that those nerve endings in the feet are cut off from the environment and the flexibility of the feet is greatly restricted. Such policies require that a core function of the human body be significantly altered for no good reason.

Let me be clear: This is not about dress codes, though for many it has been in the past. Think long and hard about the issue and you will see that it transcends dress codes.

Smiles,
Barefoot Michael

Michael, While you have very good points, the pro...

2011-06-30T15:20:17.221-05:00

Michael,

While you have very good points, the problem is that in this country businesses have the legal right to impose a dress code with or without justification. If this wasn’t the case, then fancy upscale restaurants where people dress formally would not be able to deny service to a customer that’s wearing shorts, tee-shirt, and flip-flops, even though he would be an eye sore compared to all the other customers.

My take on this issue is that any place where customers can dress casually should also be able to go barefoot, but not in fancy upscale places where people are expected to dress nice. This is where I draw the line, but other barefooters may disagree with me on this saying that we should be able to go barefoot anywhere. In any case, this is a very gray area that you will have to deal with in your legal pursuit.

If you want a law that protects bare feet anywhere, you need to prove that this is not just a dress and appearance issue, it’s a health issue. You need to prove that some people are very uncomfortable wearing shoes, and in fact some even have health problems that are alleviated by going barefoot, and that it is not right that these people have to suffer just because others want us to wear shoes. The emphasis should be on health, otherwise the lawmakers will say that if they protect bare feet they must also protect going shirtless anywhere, which they will not accept.

Another point is that many establishments where casual dress is permitted, such as stores, are not greatly concerned with appearances, except when the customer is truly dressed objectionably (e.g., vulgar language on T-shirt). Their main concerns are liability and supposed health code violation. Therefore, we need to somehow educate the masses on these matters, so that they will lose their unjustified fears and thus remove their anti-barefoot policies. Only the true barefoot haters would continue their policy despite knowing the facts, until the law protecting bare feet becomes a reality!