Really as a business person. I say let businesses do what they want. Customers will shop where they are welcome. I know that I am not welcome in many places and simply do not patronize those places. These shopkeepers have a target demographic…. They could phrase they sign in a more welcoming manner, but all the same – I see "no shirt, no shoes, no service" in many a place and have never seen those non-chassidic shopkeepers get sued.
Comment by Alan Lattke — January 22, 2014 @ 1:28 PM
It is so simple…if they don’t want to observe the Law, there are plenty of other places for them to shop!
Speaking of low-cut necklines on women…why is the man who stares at cleavage the one who gets sued for sexual harassment when it's natural for any man to notice such things? Aren't women who dress provocatively really the ones committing sexual harassment by trying to appeal to the biological desires of men? But yeah, nobody's ever had a problem with "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs, and those are usually directed at men. Besides, it's private property….or does private property not exist anymore?
It makes good business sense to cater to the needs of your customer. No doubt their "normal" customer base would be uncomfortable if, for example, a woman came in wearing shorts, etc. — and it would hurt business.
Just for clarity's sake, one can't be sued for sexual harassment just for looking at someone. Sexual harassment is defined as:
unwelcome sexual advances made by an employer or superior, especially when compliance is made a condition of continued employment or advancement. or: the persistent unwelcome directing of sexual remarks and looks, and unnecessary physical contact at a person, usually a woman, esp in the workplace. These imply much more than just looking at a woman's bust, no matter how she dresses. Sexual harassment involves a power imbalance and can be female to male as well as male to female (although that is less likely). So yes, women who dress provocatively may like and want attention, and while that does not give permission for more, such as touch or sex, that does not mean that the man who looks can be sued for sexual harassment for looking.
Comment by Robin Birdfish — January 22, 2014 @ 8:39 PM
Good point. Dress code should be business's choice
Arthur Gjika We could stretch it to clubs that would have a guy exclude you based on your looks or not "mixing in" with the crowd that night…
Comment by Alan Lattke — January 22, 2014 @ 10:53 PM
they tried that on the beach here once, went right out of business, the only people that fit the dress code was homeless people and drug addicts that had to keep their track marks covered up. I learned not to go near a place where people are overly dressed out of season.
Robin Birdfish, sorry. That was a poor attempt at humor. I didn't mean to imply that a woman has it coming even if she wears a bikini. Men have x-ray imaginations anyways, so even a burka wouldn't protect her from unwanted advances. And most women who are seriously harassed tend to dress more modestly to stop the unwanted attention. I shouldn't make light of the situation or lessen a man's responsibility to suppress his natural urges. For the record, I follow Seinfeld's rule of treating cleavage like looking at the sun. Just kidding. Whenever I see an attractive woman, I just pretend she's either married or doesn't exist…it saves a lot of trouble in the end. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to pretend you don't exist