Sunday, July 24, 2011

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION DESK: I was eating fast food yesterday, and a man came in wearing shorts, sandals, and a vest without a shirt beneath it. The restaurant's manager took the position that this attire violated the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy. While I did not get involved, it strikes me that this poses an interesting question--does said attire violate the policy, or not?

16 comments:

  1. Joseph J. Finn6:22 PM

    I'm inclined to agree since I don;t consider sandals to be proper shoes, but I think as long as your feet are not touching the floor and your nipples are covered, you're cool.  (Of course, by this definition then Mia Jovovich is wearing a shirt in The Fifth Element, so this may need some tweeking.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. No dice?

    ReplyDelete
  3. isaac_spaceman6:44 PM

    Boots aren't shoes, but boots don't violate the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule.  A vest isn't a shirt, but as long as it covers as much as a tank top, it's the same as boots.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Duvall7:46 PM

    Do they serve people wearing dresses?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Generally I'm comfortable giving management discretion on the shirt / not-a-shirt issue, since, on an original intent analysis, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" has always been intended to serve notice that an establishment reserves the right to refuse service to scroungy looking hippie types.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Pathetic Earthling8:23 PM

    Isn't the policy "I will kick out anyone I believe to be absurdly dressed" with No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service to simply be a vanguard against folks who might be less-than-fully covered? 

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eric J.9:18 PM

    Sandals ar fine. As for the vest, I think it comes down to whether his nipples were visible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:23 PM

    I will take his case at my standard outrageous rate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jim Bell9:32 AM

    I was the Guest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous10:05 AM

    Wow. Jim Tressel has really let himself go.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This reminds me of one of my dad's favorite "jokes":

    Q: What's the difference between an orange?
    A: A bicycle. And a vest has no sleeves.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul Tabachneck1:18 PM

    I submit that the attire is inanimate, and therefore, innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fred App1:51 PM

    Someone who is wearing a vest and no shirt should not be allowed anywhere in public, just on general principle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. victoria3:13 PM

    If the nipples were covered I'm inclined to accept it, with a stipulation allowing mockery under my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  15. D'Arcy8:59 PM

    I agree that as long as the nipples weren't visible, it's probably fine. The real question here is,did the manager of a fast food restaurant really feel the place had some sort of tone to uphold?

    ReplyDelete