Hoodies and hats shouldn't be banned from malls!

[skepticalbeliever]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24293567-23272,00.html

I had an intresting experience in a mall in CT. First my brother was asked to remove his hoodie, while plenty of people had hats on, and my mother was asked to show an ID when she purchased a video game that was rated M for violence. It was the new SOCOM for ps3. My mother is 54. Perhaps the next thing that in the state of CT will be to make people show ID if they wish to purchase a Bible, Quran, Bagavad gita or shakesphere. They all have plenty of violence in them. I think this violates privacy because I shouldn't have to reveal to a store clerk where I live if I want to purchase media of which liberals don't approve.

I never knew there was a dress code in malls. I was under the impression that you could wear what ever you wanted in them. Are people going to be told to tuck their shirts in and wear long skirts next? But not in the state of CT it seems.

I find it outrageous that this ban doesn't extend to turbans and burkas and all forms of head wear. Isn't it discrimination to say that Muslims and Indians can wear head gear, while secular people and Christians can't? If these malls wish to serve the public, than I don't believe they should be able to descriminate against anyone. The more I think about it the more angry I get in fact. Some times I where a hoodie if I didn't brush my hair. If a member of any religious group doesn't have to show their hair in a public place than neither do I.

[zooterkin]

I never knew there was a dress code in malls. I was under the impression that you could wear what ever you wanted in them. Are people going to be told to tuck their shirts in and wear long skirts next? But not in the state of CT it seems.


Shopping centres in the UK have had this sort of restriction for a few years now. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4534903.stm)
Hooded tops, baseball caps and swearing have been outlawed at Bluewater shopping centre in Kent as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour.

[Sefarst]

A town in Florida banned baggy pants.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b8_1205391971

[Sherman Bay]

Now baseball caps are antisocial? Quick, someone alert the NY Yankees!

[ImaginalDisc]

Soeone just lost my business.

[Redtail]

Now baseball caps are antisocial? Quick, someone alert the NY Yankees!

Well he did say CT. I found at UCONN there were far more Red Sox Fans so...

[Modified]

A town in Florida banned baggy pants.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b8_1205391971

So if you walk around in underwear only, you're in the clear?

[I Ratant]

There's all manner of children who, with no discipline at home, have no experience with limits, and need to be shown just what is and what isn't acceptable to a normal society.
Wanna-be gangsta's took to wearing hoodies AND scarfs around the lower face at the local Mall.
All were escorted off the premises.
The fad lasted about a day.
A couple of Goths walked around with "ausrotten" embroidered on their silve and black costumes.
I spoke to Mall security, and these no longer fester at the Mall.
Underwear showing from the waist to below the butt, where the jeans are being held up (no one told these poor souls about belts)...
Out of the Mall, kid.

[Hindmost]

just ban the kids...

glenn:boxedin:

[Puppycow]

Hoodies banned? Even if you don't have the hood over your head?

I wear a hoodie and I'm not antisocial. WTF?

[WildCat]

Hoodies banned? Even if you don't have the hood over your head?

I wear a hoodie and I'm not antisocial. WTF?
I'm assuming it's just with the hood over your head.

[Harpyja]

I have an objection with this only if its actually been practiced strictly. There are many ridiculous laws on the books, and I won't bother listing them here because quite frankly, there are way too many websites dedicated to them. Unless they're actually being practiced, they have no weight.

I've found things like dress code in public places like malls generally only apply if they think that you're "up to no good." Malls, being places of business, generally don't take the practice of kicking out well-behaved, paying customers because they're wearing the odd baseball cap or have their hoodie up - because it's highly likely they're going to be pissed at the inconvenience and not only take their business elsewhere, but potentially drive away business. There are always exceptions.

But, it's a lot easier for a manager to get rid of a few people loitering or engaging in other behavior that might be scaring paying customers away if he can point to a rule book. It's not meant to be a strict rule, it's a rule that's only meant to be applied to extreme scenarios.

:dragon:
ETA: I was at the mall (Coral Square) in a hoodie once with my ex, a 180 pound, 18 year old male who was wearing black Tripp pants and a black vest with fingercuffs all over it. All we got were a couple of strange looks from the security guards. We were an odd couple. :shy:

[qwints]

There's all manner of children who, with no discipline at home, have no experience with limits, and need to be shown just what is and what isn't acceptable to a normal society.
Wanna-be gangsta's took to wearing hoodies AND scarfs around the lower face at the local Mall.
All were escorted off the premises.
The fad lasted about a day.
A couple of Goths walked around with "ausrotten" embroidered on their silve and black costumes.
I spoke to Mall security, and these no longer fester at the Mall.
Underwear showing from the waist to below the butt, where the jeans are being held up (no one told these poor souls about belts)...
Out of the Mall, kid.

The mall is not your lawn, gramps.

[rwguinn]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24293567-23272,00.html

I had an intresting experience in a mall in CT. First my brother was asked to remove his hoodie, while plenty of people had hats on, and my mother was asked to show an ID when she purchased a video game that was rated M for violence. It was the new SOCOM for ps3. My mother is 54. Perhaps the next thing that in the state of CT will be to make people show ID if they wish to purchase a Bible, Quran, Bagavad gita or shakesphere. They all have plenty of violence in them. I think this violates privacy because I shouldn't have to reveal to a store clerk where I live if I want to purchase media of which liberals don't approve.

I never knew there was a dress code in malls. I was under the impression that you could wear what ever you wanted in them. Are people going to be told to tuck their shirts in and wear long skirts next? But not in the state of CT it seems.

I find it outrageous that this ban doesn't extend to turbans and burkas and all forms of head wear. Isn't it discrimination to say that Muslims and Indians can wear head gear, while secular people and Christians can't? If these malls wish to serve the public, than I don't believe they should be able to descriminate against anyone. The more I think about it the more angry I get in fact. Some times I where a hoodie if I didn't brush my hair. If a member of any religious group doesn't have to show their hair in a public place than neither do I.
Malls are Private Property.
They can require that you wear a coat and tie to enter, if they want...
The same folks that insist that Walmart didn't take adequate precautions are now bitching that other places do take precautions, which they find repressive...
sigh....

[Bikewer]

I can sort of see the merchant's point....
We have a local "high-end" mall here that a couple of years ago became a handy stop for the new Metrolink spur.
In those two years, shoplifting and grab-and-run thefts have become epidemic at this particular mall, due largely to "inner-city" kids taking the Metro to congregate there.
Arrest and prosecution of these kids is almost more problematic than the thefts themselves. Most are juveniles, and having store security grab and then arrange to prosecute these people is time-consuming and expensive, with typically mild sanctions against the thieves themselves.
As well, the appearance of these kids is off-putting to the high-rent customers who are the bread and butter of the shops there.
These toney types don't want to rub elbows with a bunch of young people they perceive to be "gangsters".

From a civil-rights standpoint, it's absurd, of course. However, the merchants have their livelyhood at stake as well.

We also have a local municipality that has tried to ban "sagging"; showing your underwear under your low-on-the-hips trousers.
This legislation will die promptly at the first court challenge, of course, but it's still in effect; most teen-agers don't have attorneys...
It was pointed out that the real reason for the law was not morality or youth crime but property values. Seems the local entrpreneurs didn't want "gangsters" hanging around and driving down the city's "image".
Kids have always indulged in fad behavior that annoys adults....

[Bob Blaylock]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24293567-23272,00.html

I had an intresting experience in a mall in CT. First my brother was asked to remove his hoodie, while plenty of people had hats on…
·
·
·
I never knew there was a dress code in malls. I was under the impression that you could wear what ever you wanted in them. Are people going to be told to tuck their shirts in and wear long skirts next? But not in the state of CT it seems.


It seems to me to be some odd offshoot of Political Correctness, that if a particular style of dress comes to be associated with unacceptable behavior, that the solution is to ban that style of dress, even where it isn't so associated. In this instance, hoodies and baseball caps are being banned because gang members often wear them, never mind that the vast majority of those who wear them are not gang members and are not otherwise in any way out to make trouble.

It's just dumb. I don't normally wear either, but if any mall or other shopping establishment wants to give me trouble because of something that I am wearing, then I'll gladly take my business somewhere else. It's private property, so they have the right to make what rules they will regarding what people may or may not wear or do while on that property; but I really have to think that a rule such as this one will hurt them, in terms of driving away otherwise well-behaved, paying customers who happen to be wearing the banned items; than it would help them by having any effect on the ill-behaved troublemakers.



A town in Florida banned baggy pants.


That's a different matter. Intentionally-exposed underwear can be treated as indecent exposure. But really, a law seems unnecessary here. When I was younger, a person with his underwear exposed was someone to be made fun of, mocked, and treated accordingly. Public ridicule used to be a very good way of enforcing minor social conventions regarding what behavior is acceptable and what is not. Someone walking around with his pants falling down shouldn't need to be arrested for it; he should just be mocked and ridiculed and treated like an outcast. But I guess that's not Politically-Correct any more either.

[quixotecoyote]

The same folks that insist that Walmart didn't take adequate precautions are now bitching that other places do take precautions, which they find repressive...
sigh....

Damn those dishonest people who came into this thread and posted opinions contrary to those they posted in the other thread!

DAMN them and their dishonest, knee-jerk hypocrisy!




Search Thread - Walmart Employee Trampled to Death by “Black Friday” Shoppers
Search by Keyword
Keyword(s):skepticalbeliever
The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Search Thread - Walmart Employee Trampled to Death by “Black Friday” Shoppers
Search by Keyword
Keyword(s):ImaginalDisc
The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Search Thread - Walmart Employee Trampled to Death by “Black Friday” Shoppers
Search by Keyword
Keyword(s):Puppycow
The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

[rwguinn]

Damn those dishonest people who came into this thread and posted opinions contrary to those they posted in the other thread!

DAMN them and their dishonest, knee-jerk hypocrisy!




Search Thread - Walmart Employee Trampled to Death by “Black Friday” Shoppers
Search by Keyword
Keyword(s):skepticalbeliever
The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Search Thread - Walmart Employee Trampled to Death by “Black Friday” Shoppers
Search by Keyword
Keyword(s):ImaginalDisc
The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Search Thread - Walmart Employee Trampled to Death by “Black Friday” Shoppers
Search by Keyword
Keyword(s):Puppycow
The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.



A foolish consistency is the sign of a small mind?
Hyperbole uber allles?
Chose your poison...
How come you chose to derail, by cherry picking the parenthetical aside part of my post, rather than the meat of it? Are you a troll?

[Sefarst]

That's a different matter. Intentionally-exposed underwear can be treated as indecent exposure. But really, a law seems unnecessary here. When I was younger, a person with his underwear exposed was someone to be made fun of, mocked, and treated accordingly. Public ridicule used to be a very good way of enforcing minor social conventions regarding what behavior is acceptable and what is not. Someone walking around with his pants falling down shouldn't need to be arrested for it; he should just be mocked and ridiculed and treated like an outcast. But I guess that's not Politically-Correct any more either.

Swimsuits are underwear, more or less. I don't see how you could regard seeing someone's underwear as indecent exposure as long as the material is thick enough to not be see-through.

The real reason for the law, IMO, is that people associate baggy pants with riff raff and think that making people dress better will make them act better. Similar to private schools that think making a kid wear a suit every day to class will make him act more gentlemanly.

[quixotecoyote]

A foolish consistency is the sign of a small mind?
Hyperbole uber allles?
Chose your poison...
How come you chose to derail, by cherry picking the parenthetical aside part of my post, rather than the meat of it? Are you a troll?


This was your post:

Malls are Private Property.
They can require that you wear a coat and tie to enter, if they want...
The same folks that insist that Walmart didn't take adequate precautions are now bitching that other places do take precautions, which they find repressive...
sigh....

The italicized text was covered better and in more detail and relevance by other posters.

I showed that your bold text was, generously, a knee-jerk emotional overreaction. More accurately a lie, but we try to keep it civil here.

If you can't deal, that's your problem.

[Policenaut]

I was in a casino last year and I was asked to take down the hood on my hoodie by a guard. I assume it had more to do with the cameras identifying me than "antisocial behavior" though.

[zooterkin]

I assume it had more to do with the cameras identifying me than "antisocial behavior" though.

Of course, part of the reason that the combination of baseball cap and hoodie is popular amongst some of the so-called 'feral youth' is that it does make it harder to identify them on security cameras. Is it prejudice to have a dress code if a certain proportion of those dressing a particular way are doing so with intent to commit crimes? Does it matter how large that proportion is?

[Sefarst]

Of course, part of the reason that the combination of baseball cap and hoodie is popular amongst some of the so-called 'feral youth' is that it does make it harder to identify them on security cameras. Is it prejudice to have a dress code if a certain proportion of those dressing a particular way are doing so with intent to commit crimes? Does it matter how large that proportion is?

It depends on whether or not it is discriminatory in effect, even if it's not discriminatory in intent. If you could show that a large majority of a particular protected minority group engages in the activity that they are trying to ban, you might have grounds that the action is discriminatory in effect.

If, for instance, a community had a large muslim population and you tried to pass a law saying that no head coverings are allowed, even though you might just be trying to get rid of hats, bandanas, etc. so as to better identify particular offenders when crimes are committed, you might run into trouble.

[The Atheist]

Do muslim chicks have to take the ninja outfit off their face before going to the mall?

[JoeyDonuts]

A couple of Goths walked around with "ausrotten" embroidered on their silve and black costumes.
I spoke to Mall security, and these no longer fester at the Mall.

I plead ignorance. What's the significance of this? Am I becoming a cranky old fuddy-duddy who's no longer hip or with it?

[malbui]

"Ausrotten" is the German verb "to exterminate". Carries a few minor negative connotations.

[JoeyDonuts]

"Ausrotten" is the German verb "to exterminate". Carries a few minor negative connotations.

I understand that it would most certainly have negative connotations. However, not having been a quasi-goth since my Bauhaus and Denny's at 4am days, I'm not familiar what it means in the context of a goth kid wearing it. Is it some kind of subculture lingo amongst modern goths? (AKA the 'X' for straight-edge punks, 88/18 tats for Neo-Nazis, etc.)

[malbui]

That I can't help you with - I'm an ageing linguist with no understanding at all of those kinds of subcultures. All I know is that seeing that particular word in any context makes me raise an eyebrow.

[gumboot]

I can understand the hoodie thing (here, when they effect those bans, it's purely a "not allowed the hood up" think). The logical reason is it's about identification - if a shoplifter is wearing a hood you probably won't be able to identify them.

Muslim women aren't required to disrobe, but I suspect malls probably don't have a problem with Muslim women shoplifting. If they did, you might see their policy towards head coverings change.

As for the other stuff like baggy pants, pants worn low, etc... that's just stupid. I'm not sure what it's like in other places, but here young people are a major source of income for malls - they're crammed full of stores that appeal to young people. If they started trying to chase out youngsters a lot of stores would pack up and leave.

[TragicMonkey]

Does the mall in question sell these "hoodies" and hats? I bet it does.

[JoeyDonuts]

Muslim women aren't required to disrobe, but I suspect malls probably don't have a problem with Muslim women shoplifting. If they did, you might see their policy towards head coverings change.

Yeah, the whole "de-pawing" thing in Islamic countries probably puts the kibbosh on the female shoplifting. I was fortunate enough to visit Dubai and walk through one of their shopping malls. Good Lord, man. Puts anything I've seen in the States to SHAME. And I'd say that the ratio of women who were uncovered to women in traditional garb was about half and half...This was the UAE, and I actually felt really safe there as an obvious American serviceman. I would bet that the women have no need to shoplift. If they're wives or concubines of a sheik or oil magnate, let's face it. They're friggin' LOADED.

[Worm]

I understand that it would most certainly have negative connotations. However, not having been a quasi-goth since my Bauhaus and Denny's at 4am days, I'm not familiar what it means in the context of a goth kid wearing it. Is it some kind of subculture lingo amongst modern goths? (AKA the 'X' for straight-edge punks, 88/18 tats for Neo-Nazis, etc.)

I think 'Ausrotten' were also a band, though I could be wrong.

Checks

Listed on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aus-Rotten) as 'Crust punk' (what???) 'Hardcore punk' and 'anarcho punk' (isn't all punk anarcho?? I thought that was the point...) - not sure if that qualifies them to be cited by goths.

Now I feel old.

[Wudang]

In the UK many feel that kids are getting a raw deal e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7443104.stm. I'm 50 btw and my kid's 3 so no vested interest. The news (TV and press) followed the US many years back and realised nothing keeps people glued to the screen like fear so they tell you the things you need to be afraid of. MMR, GM food, and packs of rabid hoodie-wearing kids terrorising neighbourhoods while binge-drinking and eating saturated fats.
And yes, I wear hoodies, a couple of the older ones from when I boxed years ago, and a baseball cap from my bank employer. I tried to get Francesca to join me in the Retail banking and wealth management institituions posse but the bling clashed with her shoes, so....

[Cavemonster]

Personally, I think anything malls do to alienate their customers only helps hasten their downfall, so I'm in favor.

We're talking about gigantic, ugly structures that offer almost exclusively dead-end minimum wage jobs and shovel money away from communities and into the pockets of large chain stores who manufacture in sweat shops.

[quarky]

What's the next big fashion statement that will become anti-social?

(I want in on it)

I'm getting a bit sick of the 'skank-ho' look. Its getting too hard to tell the prostitutes from the good christian teens.

[WildCat]

Personally, I think anything malls do to alienate their customers only helps hasten their downfall, so I'm in favor.

We're talking about gigantic, ugly structures that offer almost exclusively dead-end minimum wage jobs and shovel money away from communities and into the pockets of large chain stores who manufacture in sweat shops.
Because people are dying to pay twice as much at a mom & pop store at a downtown store with no available parking to buy the exact same stuff made in the exact same sweatshop. Oh, and mom & pop pay their employees even less than the big chains!

[I Ratant]

"Ausrotten' is a term of some controversy.
Himmler used it in a speech in the Reichstag, specifically intending the "extermination" to apply to Jews.
When the Goth children adopt it, with their SS inspired costumes, it has no other connotation.
One of the neo-nazis who defended national socialism on the Compuserve Issues forum changed his mind when Himmler's recorded speech became available.

[ZirconBlue]

"Ausrotten' is a term of some controversy.
Himmler used it in a speech in the Reichstag, specifically intending the "extermination" to apply to Jews.
When the Goth children adopt it, with their SS inspired costumes, it has no other connotation.
One of the neo-nazis who defended national socialism on the Compuserve Issues forum changed his mind when Himmler's recorded speech became available.

Goth Nazi's? Really?

[Donal]

Because people are dying to pay twice as much at a mom & pop store at a downtown store with no available parking to buy the exact same stuff made in the exact same sweatshop. Oh, and mom & pop pay their employees even less than the big chains!


Because they are able to avoid things like unions and benefits packages.

[stilicho]

... (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24293567-23272,00.html)my mother was asked to show an ID when she purchased a video game that was rated M for violence. It was the new SOCOM for ps3. My mother is 54...

Hey, everyone missed the most important part. Are computer video games now deemed controlled substances?

[Donal]

The same way movies are. Thats why they have a ratings system.

As far as I know, its a voluntary thing.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Does the mall in question sell these "hoodies" and hats? I bet it does.
It probably sells chainsaws, too.

[Donal]

Its a private business. They can enforce a dress code.

Did people get this cranky when "No shirt, no shoes, no service" became popular?

[Tailgater]

I worked for a chain of malls in south Florida about 17 years ago and one of them south of Miami banned any sports apparel that involved the Raiders and I can't remember the other teams. While it seemed crazy anywhere else, one of the local gangs had adopted the Raiders as the gang colors and it was not uncommon for them to hang around the mall. These were also messages to the other gangs and fights would break out. You could buy items from the sports shop, but it had to stay in the bag until leaving the property. There are many things that are a problem locally that sound kind of crazy nationally.

[Harpyja]

:hb:

Okay, we get it. Malls imposing regulations on items of clothing being worn by its customers are discriminatory. Malls should not have a "dress code."

For a moment I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here in regards to my own opinion (which is that clothing restrictions should not be challenged as long as they are being used sparingly and only as a method by which teenagers suspected of loitering and driving away customers are removed from the property). What arguments can be made against mall "dress codes?"

Discrimination is one of the more compelling arguments. However, the argument of discrimination is easily shot down when you consider that the rule specifies baseball caps and hoodies worn up - not religious wear, such as that worn by Muslim women. Racial and religious discrimination is the only type of discrimination that comes up under "strict scrutiny" - meaning, that racial and religious discrimination is the only type of discrimination that cannot be justified by a logical explanation. (Age discrimination does not follow this, by the way, and gender discrimination is currently "borderline," but that may be changed over time. Religious discrimination is a throwback to the founding of our country, when many immigrants came to America to escape religious persecution, and as such was rather important to the founding fathers.)

The explanation arguing for dress code is obvious - baseball caps and upturned hoodies, in addition to being a security risk, can also be worn in reference in gang activity. As such, customers may be unwilling to shop at the mall or may spend less time shopping in a specific area. In addition, youths usually causing the concern are also known for participating in behavior that drives away customers in addition to their appearance. The rule allows the managers of businesses to remove loiterers from their property that are not welcome because of their behavior, not nessecarily because of their dress.

@Tailgater - Perfect example.

[Dr H]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24293567-23272,00.html
I think this violates privacy because I shouldn't have to reveal to a store clerk where I live if I want to purchase media of which liberals don't approve.

I can relate to that. I have the same issue when I want to purchase media of which conservatives don't approve. ;)

[WildCat]

Hey, everyone missed the most important part. Are computer video games now deemed controlled substances?
Apparently they are in CT.

A similar law here in Illinois was struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

[Dr H]

There's all manner of children who, with no discipline at home, have no experience with limits, and need to be shown just what is and what isn't acceptable to a normal society.
Wanna-be gangsta's took to wearing hoodies AND scarfs around the lower face at the local Mall.
All were escorted off the premises.
The fad lasted about a day.
A couple of Goths walked around with "ausrotten" embroidered on their silve and black costumes.
I spoke to Mall security, and these no longer fester at the Mall.
Underwear showing from the waist to below the butt, where the jeans are being held up (no one told these poor souls about belts)...
Out of the Mall, kid.

Hmm...

I don't know how it is in your neck of the planet, but where I live the particular clothing and paraphenalia of which you speak is primarily sold in stores at the mall

Spencer Gifts caters to the goth crowd; Hot Topic sells gear to well-heeled punk and heavy metal fans; Zumiez covers the beltless-pants-halfway-down-your-ass skateboarding crowd; Excalibur and Magic Castle of Swords sell everything from faux samurai swords to Klingon bat'leth; and between All American Sports Fan and More of Everything you can find any sort of baseball cap your heart desires. A dozen theaters play movies daily which contain levels of violence ranging from gratuitous to disgusting.

And JC Pennys, Macy's, and a half dozen local equivalents will cheerfully sell you any color of hoodie, bandana, or sneakers to fit the lastest gansta fashion trend.

I guess the message these stores are trying to send is, "we'll gladly take your money and sell you clothing to meet any scary new fad, but don't actually wear any of that clothing when you come to shop at our store, because... well, because it scares us."

[Harpyja]

I guess the message these stores are trying to send is, "we'll gladly take your money and sell you clothing to meet any scary new fad, but don't actually wear any of that clothing when you come to shop at our store, because... well, because it scares us."


No.


We'll gladly take your money and sell you clothing to meet any scary new fad, but don't actually wear any of that clothing when you come to shop at our store, because... well, because it scares other paying customers who may not be into that specific fad, and well, their money is just as good as yours, particularly if you're not buying anything and simply loitering around. We can't kick you out for something that stupid, so we're going to make up a rule in order to discourage that type of behavior in the first place and keep our paying customers, who might be parents buying something for their kids or something, from leaving because they're afraid you're a member of an actual gang.

[gnome]

:hb:

Okay, we get it. Malls imposing regulations on items of clothing being worn by its customers are discriminatory. Malls should not have a "dress code."

For a moment I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here in regards to my own opinion (which is that clothing restrictions should not be challenged as long as they are being used sparingly and only as a method by which teenagers suspected of loitering and driving away customers are removed from the property). What arguments can be made against mall "dress codes?"

Discrimination is one of the more compelling arguments. However, the argument of discrimination is easily shot down when you consider that the rule specifies baseball caps and hoodies worn up - not religious wear, such as that worn by Muslim women. Racial and religious discrimination is the only type of discrimination that comes up under "strict scrutiny" - meaning, that racial and religious discrimination is the only type of discrimination that cannot be justified by a logical explanation. (Age discrimination does not follow this, by the way, and gender discrimination is currently "borderline," but that may be changed over time. Religious discrimination is a throwback to the founding of our country, when many immigrants came to America to escape religious persecution, and as such was rather important to the founding fathers.)

The explanation arguing for dress code is obvious - baseball caps and upturned hoodies, in addition to being a security risk, can also be worn in reference in gang activity. As such, customers may be unwilling to shop at the mall or may spend less time shopping in a specific area. In addition, youths usually causing the concern are also known for participating in behavior that drives away customers in addition to their appearance. The rule allows the managers of businesses to remove loiterers from their property that are not welcome because of their behavior, not nessecarily because of their dress.

@Tailgater - Perfect example.

If you're establishing that such rules are OK to use when targeting specific behavior--why not skip the middleman and just say it's OK to remove people from the property for their behavior?

[I Ratant]

Hmm...

...
I guess the message these stores are trying to send is, "we'll gladly take your money and sell you clothing to meet any scary new fad, but don't actually wear any of that clothing when you come to shop at our store, because... well, because it scares us."
.
Basically the same here.. as noted, after buying a leaf blower or chainsaw at Sears, one doesn't fire the sucker up and stroll thru the Mall.
The Goths in particular congregate in a mob, which violates the 'No 4 teenagers in a group" rule at the Mall.
They tend to gather outside, where the cops will occasionally shoo them away.
These tend to bother the shoppers, if not the shop owners.
One or two wandering about in the typical Goth daze, they're just curiosities, with the observers wondering how their parents screwed up so badly.
The mayonnaise haired Iriquois hairstyles get a similar response.
I look at it as a rather benign way for the unbalanced to identify themselves, without anything like having to wear a star. The backwards ball cap is sufficient.
The beltless jeans which need to be held up, same thing.
Other than scaring us old guys, what's the point of wandering around looking stupid?

[quarky]

If the young sociopaths were more clever, they'd switch to a new costume that slipped beneath the profile. That would buy them some time. Mormon missionary is a good look for getting away with some 'stuff'. If the gangs adopted that look, and it became banned, the Mormon missionaries would be obligated to change their look as well.

What fun.


Nudity can't become a popular look because it can't sell costumes.
A costume being phazed out is the best of costumes, if you'd like to sell a new one.

[Polaris]

Nudity can't become a popular look because it can't sell costumes.
A costume being phazed out is the best of costumes, if you'd like to sell a new one.

But it would cut down on shoplifting.

[JoeyDonuts]

I was just curious if the "Ausrotten" SS-styled "goth outfit" was a localized thing. Most goths I've seen don't exhibit the meticulous attention to tidy and uptight personal appearance that one would associate with an SS uniform.

So what does an SS Goth outfit look like? I mean, I know about the ridiculous "drum major" thing groups like My Chemical Romance (not really Goth, I know) are pushing...but does that mean they tuck their 70 dollar hoodies into their 85 dollar pants?

[Euromutt]

Hey, everyone missed the most important part. Are computer video games now deemed controlled substances?
I'd guess it's a store policy to deflect criticism that they're selling products that some pressure group deems objectionable. That way, they can say "look, we're making sure we're not selling it to anyone underage." I bought a copy of Fallout 3 at Target in Federal Way, WA in early November, and the cashier (apologetically) asked to see my ID as well, and I'm very certain there's no legal requirement for them to do that (though we did have some moronic state legislator who introduced a bill a few years back that would have prohibited sales of any video game that involved shooting law enforcement personnel, until it was pointed out that his wording would also cover Imperial stormtroopers and members of the Gestapo). Mind you, some stores do go overboard (http://consumerist.com/344525/best-buy-forbids-you-from-buying-assassins-creed-insists-youre-buying-it-for-a-minor) in implementing their policies.

For a moment I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here in regards to my own opinion (which is that clothing restrictions should not be challenged as long as they are being used sparingly and only as a method by which teenagers suspected of loitering and driving away customers are removed from the property).I disagree. If a regulation--be it a law or a company policy--is applied selectively rather than consistently, it's almost certainly a fig leaf for a hidden rule, and the reason that rule is hidden is because it's controversial, or outright illegal. In this case, the rule is clearly being used to eject visitors who meet a certain profile, of which the clothing is only one element. The reason the other criteria are not explicitly stated is most likely because it would violate anti-discrimination laws to do so.

[Cavemonster]

Because people are dying to pay twice as much at a mom & pop store at a downtown store with no available parking to buy the exact same stuff made in the exact same sweatshop. Oh, and mom & pop pay their employees even less than the big chains!

1) You're thinking of the big box stores. Unless your area is quite different from mine, or thing have changed drastically, Mall prices and Local store prices for the same items are similar.

2) Again, I don't know where you live, but if you actually measure the distance from the end of the football field sized mall parking lot, through the whole mall, up the escalator etc, I'm going to bet that you're not parking much closer to the store of your choice at the mall. You do get to do more of that walking indoors, but they pick the music, so I'll call that one a toss up.

3) Yes, local stores generally care the same dubiously produced merchandise, but you never find goods produced by small local businesses at the chain shops at the mall. You will only find locally made clothing, jewlery, produce and food products etc at local stores. And before you go off, yes a locally made scarf will cost more than a Gap one, but less than a scarf at Macy's in the same mall that is really of comparable quality.

4) Again, Mom and Pop paying lower wages is not my experience, but maybe you have evidence I don't. What Small stores do have are local management positions that are actually a career. Chain stores do most of that kind of descision making at their Corporate headquarters and through the economies of scale create one such management job for every several dozen stores.

5) The biggest difference is that money spent locally circulates locally. A very small portion of it comparably is frozen as stored wealth. When money is spent at businesses owned by billionaires, who pay rent to Mall developers who are also millionaires or billionaires, a higher portion goes to increasing their stored wealth which goes out of circulation.

[qwints]

Racial and religious discrimination is the only type of discrimination that comes up under "strict scrutiny" - meaning, that racial and religious discrimination is the only type of discrimination that cannot be justified by a logical explanation. (Age discrimination does not follow this, by the way, and gender discrimination is currently "borderline," but that may be changed over time. Religious discrimination is a throwback to the founding of our country, when many immigrants came to America to escape religious persecution, and as such was rather important to the founding fathers.)


The strict scrutiny and rational basis tests only apply to action by governmental entities. Private citizens (including malls) are restricted from discrimination by statutes like the civil rights act and the ADA. The test thus becomes one of statutory construction. Protected groups differ between states, but teens are probably not protected in most states.

[Dr H]

No.

Quote:
We'll gladly take your money and sell you clothing to meet any scary new fad, but don't actually wear any of that clothing when you come to shop at our store, because... well, because it scares other paying customers who may not be into that specific fad, and well, their money is just as good as yours, particularly if you're not buying anything and simply loitering around. We can't kick you out for something that stupid, so we're going to make up a rule in order to discourage that type of behavior in the first place and keep our paying customers, who might be parents buying something for their kids or something, from leaving because they're afraid you're a member of an actual gang.

Nah, you rationalize beyond all rational bounds.

First off, we're talking about malls, not people loitering around inside a particular business. Where I live most malls are huge enclosed structures in which various shops are arrayed around the perimeter of a large common area. I was in one of these structures just this past weekend. I didn't note any requirement that people occupying these common areas were required to purchase anything in order to be allowed to be there. Indeed, it is quite common for seniors in my town to take their regular exercise by going to these malls and walking a lap or two around the perimeter of the common area, most often doing nothing but window-shopping. I have yet to see any of these elderly folks harassed by mall secuity for loitering or failure-to-buy.

Second, if you are catering to the dress-up fads of kids, then those kids are your "paying customers".

Third, I suppose there are places where "gangs" hang out at shopping malls, but that doesn't really seem to be the case around here. We do have gangs, but they seem to prefer to hang out in places where they are not under constant surveillance by recording video cameras -- bad for the drug trade, you know.

Fourth, if stores are going to characterize someone as a "gang member" based on their appearance, and then sell things which cater to that apperance, well, I have no sympathy for them when they find groups of strangely-garbed young people hanging around their stores. It's like complaining about parents bringing their kids to a toy store, or a bar complaining about drunks.

[Dr H]

.
Basically the same here.. as noted, after buying a leaf blower or chainsaw at Sears, one doesn't fire the sucker up and stroll thru the Mall.

That's kind of a "slippery slope" fallacy. True, you don't buy a chainsaw in Sears and fire it up in the store. Nor do you buy a new car and drive it around the showroom.

But at the other end of the spectrum, people buy food in a resturant and consume it on the premises, and people buy various soft drinks and stroll through the mall drinking them.

In between the two extremes is a whole realm of possiblity. For example, I certainly have occasionally purchased a jacket or a vest, and put it on in the store, and even <gasp> worn it around the mall as I check out other shops.

The Goths in particular congregate in a mob, which violates the 'No 4 teenagers in a group" rule at the Mall.
They tend to gather outside, where the cops will occasionally shoo them away.
These tend to bother the shoppers, if not the shop owners.
One or two wandering about in the typical Goth daze, they're just curiosities, with the observers wondering how their parents screwed up so badly.
The mayonnaise haired Iriquois hairstyles get a similar response.
I look at it as a rather benign way for the unbalanced to identify themselves, without anything like having to wear a star. The backwards ball cap is sufficient.
The beltless jeans which need to be held up, same thing.
Other than scaring us old guys, what's the point of wandering around looking stupid?

People who look strange don't bother me. Hell, I used to be one of them (and some might contend that I still am :) )

I'm more concerned with people's behavior. Someone sitting on a bench in front of Abercrombie and Fitch, dressed up like Count Dracula, doesn't phase me at all. Not even if they happen to be sitting with Edgar Allen Poe and Morticia Addams. If one of them tries to bite me on the neck, well, then I will take exception.

Frankly I'm more put off by the fact that Abercrombie and Fitch always seems to exude a smell like someone just dropped a case of cheap aftershave -- but that's a different issue entirely.

[I Ratant]

One of the stores that opened in the Mall some years back had a distinctly unpleasant odor when stocked with the original merchandise.
As with 99% of the clothing stores nowadays, it all came from China.
Since then I've either accommodated to the odor, or the manufacturer is washing the product before shipping.
The most common aggravation at the Mall is the aforementioned groups of teenagers, who get into a "Who can say the dirty words the loudest" competition.
Mall Security tosses the whole group out.

[WildCat]

1) You're thinking of the big box stores. Unless your area is quite different from mine, or thing have changed drastically, Mall prices and Local store prices for the same items are similar.

2) Again, I don't know where you live, but if you actually measure the distance from the end of the football field sized mall parking lot, through the whole mall, up the escalator etc, I'm going to bet that you're not parking much closer to the store of your choice at the mall. You do get to do more of that walking indoors, but they pick the music, so I'll call that one a toss up.

3) Yes, local stores generally care the same dubiously produced merchandise, but you never find goods produced by small local businesses at the chain shops at the mall. You will only find locally made clothing, jewlery, produce and food products etc at local stores. And before you go off, yes a locally made scarf will cost more than a Gap one, but less than a scarf at Macy's in the same mall that is really of comparable quality.

4) Again, Mom and Pop paying lower wages is not my experience, but maybe you have evidence I don't. What Small stores do have are local management positions that are actually a career. Chain stores do most of that kind of descision making at their Corporate headquarters and through the economies of scale create one such management job for every several dozen stores.

5) The biggest difference is that money spent locally circulates locally. A very small portion of it comparably is frozen as stored wealth. When money is spent at businesses owned by billionaires, who pay rent to Mall developers who are also millionaires or billionaires, a higher portion goes to increasing their stored wealth which goes out of circulation.
First of all, damned few malls in Chicago. There simply isn't room for them. But most of the same stores you see in the malls are represented here, but they are in smaller strip malls or stand-alone stores.

As for your area, what's to prevent mom & pop from moving their store to the mall?

[stilicho]

The most common aggravation at the Mall is the aforementioned groups of teenagers, who get into a "Who can say the dirty words the loudest" competition.

Why not join in? I'll bet you know a few of them that the kids have never heard before!

[Beerina]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24293567-23272,00.html

I had an intresting experience in a mall in CT. First my brother was asked to remove his hoodie, while plenty of people had hats on

Teens make adult shoppers nervous, and thus less likely to go shopping at the mall. Adopting "street" looks exacerbates this.

You can argue it shouldn't be bannable, but you can't argue that it isn't a correct analysis.

and my mother was asked to show an ID when she purchased a video game that was rated M for violence. It was the new SOCOM for ps3. My mother is 54.

Wow! Is your mom available?


Perhaps the next thing that in the state of CT will be to make people show ID if they wish to purchase a Bible, Quran, Bagavad gita or shakesphere. They all have plenty of violence in them. I think this violates privacy because I shouldn't have to reveal to a store clerk where I live if I want to purchase media of which liberals don't approve.

True, but it's to establish age of majority rather than your address. I wouldn't know how to separate this. It's also really to stop the under-18 for getting it.

Some stores (and states?) require everyone to be carded to fend off lawsuits because a minor bought it illegally because the clerk didn't check because the clerk "assumed" they were over 18. So it also thus traps older folks too.


I find it outrageous that this ban doesn't extend to turbans and burkas and all forms of head wear.

People who wear stuff like that are buying, not hanging around. If they were seen as threatening, driving away other customers, you may have a point. But I doubt that's what you're getting at.

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, I can't actually believe that people are arguing that private businesses shouldn't have the right to require and enforce dress codes.

[The Atheist]

Wow, I can't actually believe that people are arguing that private businesses shouldn't have the right to require and enforce dress codes.

Especially on a private internet forum which enforces language and incivility restrictions.

[qwints]

Malls are special. As they have, to a very large extent, replaced the town square, they are the common space of the US. It's for this reason that California extends free speech protection to places like malls. It can be a very big deal for a teen's social life to be banned from the mall. Imagine the effect of a mall banning all political speech both spoken and worn. That might legitimately cause outrage - though it would be legal.

Basically I think it's fine to remove people who are a threat to the mall or to others, but it's reasonable for people to complain about the way the mall goes about achieving that end.

[PhantomWolf]

Malls are special. As they have, to a very large extent, replaced the town square, they are the common space of the US. It's for this reason that California extends free speech protection to places like malls. It can be a very big deal for a teen's social life to be banned from the mall. Imagine the effect of a mall banning all political speech both spoken and worn. That might legitimately cause outrage - though it would be legal.

Tha answer is that if you want to go there you follow the rules, if you don't want to follow the rules, don't go there. Asking for hoodies to be down indoors (where you don't need hoodies) is not an infrinment on anyone's rights and if you want to wear your's up, don't go places where they demand they are down. If you don't follow the rules, just like on this board, expect to get suspended or banned.

Basically I think it's fine to remove people who are a threat to the mall or to others, but it's reasonable for people to complain about the way the mall goes about achieving that end.

Anyone is entitled to complain about anything, but in the end they have to recognise that when it comes to private land, private businesses, and private rules, you either obey them, or go somewhere else.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That's kind of a "slippery slope" fallacy.
No. It is merely a counter-example to the rule implied by your post that buying an item somewhere comes with the right to use that item in the same location.

[quarky]

Malls sort of happened after I was grown up. If I was younger, i'd definitely mess with the authority therein, especially if I could also check out some chics.

Is it just me, or do malls suck, and deserve total destruction?

Probably doesn't matter. They will rot from the inside out soon enough, and we won't know where to buy our latest anti-social accutrements.

Its not cheap these days to look like a non-comformist. That's what rankles my ass.

Punks should be able to run from cops without holding their baggy pants up.

(I'm very disapointed in the anti-social element these days)

hell, why not get a tatoo while you're at it, so the cops have an easy way to identify you?

If we ever succeed at delivering our society from the disruptive energy of youth, we'll need to invent some new disturbances...even if it costs a little in extra guards.

[qwints]

Tha answer is that if you want to go there you follow the rules, if you don't want to follow the rules, don't go there. Asking for hoodies to be down indoors (where you don't need hoodies) is not an infrinment on anyone's rights and if you want to wear your's up, don't go places where they demand they are down. If you don't follow the rules, just like on this board, expect to get suspended or banned.



Anyone is entitled to complain about anything, but in the end they have to recognise that when it comes to private land, private businesses, and private rules, you either obey them, or go somewhere else.

And right here is my problem with the privatisation of society. It strangles freedom by closing off avenues for expression. There are many suburbs/towns in America where nobody walks down the street, where there are no public forums and where nobody ever has to be exposed to a disagreeable view point. I see that as a bad thing.

Obviously malls are entitled to keep out illegal activity. But I have a big problem with the goal of keeping out "riff-raff." Voting with your dollars is not the same as voting. Consumers aren't the same as citizens. Petty tyrants are still tyrants. Personal autonomy matters. Allowing semi-public spaces like malls to ban freedom without a good reason harms our society.

[The Atheist]

Allowing semi-public spaces like malls to ban freedom without a good reason harms our society.

Luckily, they have a very good reason: economics.

People who spend lots of money at the mall are scared of gangsta-looking dicks who spend very little money. Doesn't take a genius to figure the rest.

[qwints]

And that way lies oligarchy.

[Shalamar]

Hmmm. I see why the malls do this. As many here said, its for identification purposes on security cameras.

I recall an issue a few years ago where on halloween, a man abducted a small child, and walked out of the mall. He could be identified, as he was wearing a mask. Thus, no more full masks at malls. This is annoying to me, but perfectly understandable.

All it takes is for one (or a small group of people) to push boundaries, thus preventing people from doing what they are used to. In this case, wearing hoodies with the hood up, and over a baseball cap. Does anyone who opposes this have an alternative?

[qwints]

I'm willing to take the risks of avoiding surveillance to avoid big brother. CCTV aren't very effective at preventing crime.

[The Atheist]

And that way lies oligarchy.

You do realise the slippery slope is a fallacy?

[qwints]

Since when?

It's really not that far a stretch. Malls are proto-oligarchies. The rich have much more freedom than the poor.

[JoeyDonuts]

No. It is merely a counter-example to the rule implied by your post that buying an item somewhere comes with the right to use that item in the same location.

Wait, wait. Does that mean I can't walk around in a grocery store eating and drinking anything I want off the shelves as long as I bring the empty wrapper for the cashier to scan?

(I don't know why but every time I see someone do this it infuriates me.)

[Dr H]

First of all, damned few malls in Chicago. There simply isn't room for them. But most of the same stores you see in the malls are represented here, but they are in smaller strip malls or stand-alone stores.

As for your area, what's to prevent mom & pop from moving their store to the mall?

I can't answer for Cavemonster, but in my area what prevents this is that floorspace rental at the malls costs about nine times per square foot what it does in a stand-alone store downtown.

[Dr H]

Wow, I can't actually believe that people are arguing that private businesses shouldn't have the right to require and enforce dress codes.

I think the issue is more about what some places call "semipublic spaces." While it's true that the mall per se may indeed be privately owned, the common spaces within that mall aren't always seen in the same legal light as the premises within Sears or Macy's.

In a case here not too long ago a local retailer with a store on the scale of Sears threw a bunch of people off their property for soliciting signatures for ballot initiative petitions. The petitioners took the issue to court and the court ruled that the store could ban petitioners from inside the store, and also from the walkway immediately in front of their doors, but that they could not ban them from the parking lot -- even though the store owns the lot -- because that was a "semipublic" space.

Given that precedent, it's OK for Sears to ban from their store shoppers wearing wingtips and green ties, but it's not OK for the mall to ban same from the benches and tables in their common areas.

As another poster pointed out, such apparently arbitrary bans walk a fine line as far as being challenged on the ground of discrimination of one sort or another. After all, if you arent' allowed in a shop because you are wearing a hoodie, why would you allow someone wearing a burkha in, when it's effectively just another hooded garment? ANd if you try to ban burkhas, you're going to get sued eventually. Either way you go, you're opening yourself to litigation.

[Dr H]

Tha answer is that if you want to go there you follow the rules, if you don't want to follow the rules, don't go there. Asking for hoodies to be down indoors (where you don't need hoodies) is not an infrinment on anyone's rights and if you want to wear your's up, don't go places where they demand they are down. If you don't follow the rules, just like on this board, expect to get suspended or banned.

And what about burkhas? Turbans? Yamulkes?


Anyone is entitled to complain about anything, but in the end they have to recognise that when it comes to private land, private businesses, and private rules, you either obey them, or go somewhere else.

To some extent. And I agree that one way to complain is to vote with your feet and go somewhere else. If enough people do that, and sales start to drop off, the business in question might reconsider thier position.

On the other hand, if someone opens their "private" business or land to the general public, they need to accept the fact that they may have to conform to certain standards held by the community in which thier private business or land is situated. I seriously doubt, for instance, that you can open a shop in very many US malls and exclude blacks, or whites, or Jews, or atheists, or women, or people in wheelchairs. Your control over your private business is, in this way, subject to the rules of the greater community.

Just because someone decides to make a rule doesn't necessarily mean that the rule is either moral or legal.

[Dr H]

Luckily, they have a very good reason: economics.

People who spend lots of money at the mall are scared of gangsta-looking dicks who spend very little money. Doesn't take a genius to figure the rest.

A few weeks ago I was in Circuit City when a couple of "gangsta-looking dicks" dropped about $4K on a big-screen TV and home theater setup. Cash.

Yeah, by all means roust those vermin out.

After they've spent their money, of course.

[Shalamar]

Whos rights are more important?

The store owners, or the public?

[Dr H]

Hmmm. I see why the malls do this. As many here said, its for identification purposes on security cameras.

I recall an issue a few years ago where on halloween, a man abducted a small child, and walked out of the mall. He could be identified, as he was wearing a mask. Thus, no more full masks at malls. This is annoying to me, but perfectly understandable.

All it takes is for one (or a small group of people) to push boundaries, thus preventing people from doing what they are used to. In this case, wearing hoodies with the hood up, and over a baseball cap. Does anyone who opposes this have an alternative?

Yeah: harass people who are actually committing crimes, instead of people who you just imagine -- based on nothing better than prejudice -- happen to look like they might possibly be thinking about committing a crime, someday.

I never have liked the idea of "thought crime".

[I Ratant]

The local Mall insists on prior registration with the Mall before setting up a solicitation table for the Reptilicans or Dumbocrats voter registration peeps.
Wandering thru the Mall distributing religious literature to one and all is prohibited.
Like walking thru the Food Court and laying a pamphlet requesting a donation on the tables of those eating/resting there.
I have had some entertaining conversations with these types, mainly asking them questions which show to them they aren't as literate as they imagine, in their particular religion.
I don't miss their absence though.
I've seen groups, including a family, marched off to the pokey for shoplifting.
Had to hold my tongue on one of them: Dad, Mom and Junior.. "Oh, Junior, your first handcuffs. Treasure this moment, I'm sure there'll be more for you".
Prolly get rousted for interference with a police officer. :(

[PhantomWolf]

And what about burkhas? Turbans? Yamulkes?

It's highly likely that if malls start to experience issues from people wearing burkhas, turbans, or yamulkes, they'll face the same rules. A bunch of Hindu preists in NZ were a bit put out after being told that they weren't allowed to carry their ceremonial knives on flights any more. That's how it is.

[The Atheist]

Whos rights are more important?

The store owners, or the public?

*sigh*

You're not getting it, are you?

The land is private property. If the store owner makes a rule as to who may come onto his poerty, it's the rule. People who don't like the rule are clearly able to go elsewhere and shop.

[Shalamar]

*sigh*

You're not getting it, are you?

The land is private property. If the store owner makes a rule as to who may come onto his poerty, it's the rule. People who don't like the rule are clearly able to go elsewhere and shop.

Oh no. I DO get it. It was just a general question since people on here seem to go either way. Either the store owner can deny service.. or they can't.

I think the issue is 'discrimination' based on how someone is dressed. Last I checked 'fashion choice' wasn't a protected class. Religious choice IS however, and some religions specify what some must wear.

[Shalamar]

Yeah: harass people who are actually committing crimes, instead of people who you just imagine -- based on nothing better than prejudice -- happen to look like they might possibly be thinking about committing a crime, someday.

I never have liked the idea of "thought crime".

Store owners/managers are capable of tracking sales. If they have people dressed a certain way hanging out, and sales seem to drop off during those times, well, why wouldn't the store owner ask them to go elsewhere? Likewise, if it seems that shoplifting occurs more when people dressed a certain way are around, heck, I'd discriminate as well.

It only takes one person to ruin it for the rest of us.

[WildCat]

A few weeks ago I was in Circuit City when a couple of "gangsta-looking dicks" dropped about $4K on a big-screen TV and home theater setup. Cash.

Yeah, by all means roust those vermin out.

After they've spent their money, of course.
Heh, some years ago my sister was dating a guy whose family had a clothing store in the Maxwell St. area. They used to get a lot of business from the gangbangers. One day, on a lark, they sewed some glittery logo (I don't remember what it was) on a baseball cap and put a $500 price tag on it.

The gangbangers couldn't get enough of them! They would come into the store and ask for the "500 hat", it became quite the status symbol for them. The power of marketing! :p

[Cavemonster]

It's highly likely that if malls start to experience issues from people wearing burkhas, turbans, or yamulkes, they'll face the same rules. A bunch of Hindu preists in NZ were a bit put out after being told that they weren't allowed to carry their ceremonial knives on flights any more. That's how it is.

Just a nitpick, these were far more likely Sikhs, who wear a ceremonial "kirkpan" dagger. Hindus have no such thing.

[PhantomWolf]

Just a nitpick, these were far more likely Sikhs, who wear a ceremonial "kirkpan" dagger. Hindus have no such thing.

ahh, yes you'd be right, I got them confused.

[Travis]

If only there were a way to get a private business to stop doing something.....like not purchasing their items and encouraging others to do the same...we could call it a "notbuyingthingathon" or "boycott."

[Marquis de Carabas]

..."boycott."
Well, just see if I ever buy anything with you with all your sexist talk.

[Foolmewunz]

Its a private business. They can enforce a dress code.

Did people get this cranky when "No shirt, no shoes, no service" became popular?

Of course. See the landmark case, Shirtless Shoeless Hungry Guy With Cash to Spend vs. Jeannies Rusty Fly Diner of Tuscaloosa.

[The Atheist]

Of course. See the landmark case, Shirtless Shoeless Hungry Guy With Cash to Spend vs. Jeannies Rusty Fly Diner of Tuscaloosa.

Hey, great avatar you have there mate!

Your Mrs must be particularly good looking - your kid looks quite normal.

[Professor Yaffle]

This all reminds me of when some pubs started banning Burberry. I walked past a pub where a girl was being refused entry due to said attire. After yelling a few obscenities in the direction of the bouncer, I heard her say to her mate, "I'm going to sue him.. this isn't even Burberry, anyone can see it's spoof".

[Dr H]

Oh no. I DO get it. It was just a general question since people on here seem to go either way. Either the store owner can deny service.. or they can't.

I think the issue is 'discrimination' based on how someone is dressed. Last I checked 'fashion choice' wasn't a protected class. Religious choice IS however, and some religions specify what some must wear.

That does raise some interesting possibilities.

Say a bunch of teenage girls flash on the idea that burkhas are really handy garb for shoplifting sprees, offering both ample pleaces to stash pilfered merchandise and concealment of identity from surveillance cameras. So they form a gang in which the gang fashion du jour is burkhas.

Now the store/mall has a case for banning people wearing burkhas from their business establishment, on the one hand, but if they do this they are undoubtedly going to end up excluding legitimate shoppers of certain religious affiliations, which is almost certainly illegal.

[Dr H]

It's highly likely that if malls start to experience issues from people wearing burkhas, turbans, or yamulkes, they'll face the same rules. A bunch of Hindu preists in NZ were a bit put out after being told that they weren't allowed to carry their ceremonial knives on flights any more. That's how it is.

Sheesh, what spoilsports. I bet they don't let Taliban members carry their ceremonial rifles, or thier ceremonial ammo, either.

[Dr H]

Store owners/managers are capable of tracking sales. If they have people dressed a certain way hanging out, and sales seem to drop off during those times, well, why wouldn't the store owner ask them to go elsewhere? Likewise, if it seems that shoplifting occurs more when people dressed a certain way are around, heck, I'd discriminate as well.

Just off the top of my head, maybe because most of the people dressed that way are black, or Muslim, or of Mexican descent. While it's true that fashion isn't a protected class, if the fashion in question happens to be favored by a lot people who are members of a protected class, the line between business prudence and discrimination becomes a bit fuzzy.

Having to defend the store against discrimination lawsuits brought by members of said protected classes could quite possibly be costlier than the lost business from customers who are uncomfortable with anyone who dresses differently.

It only takes one person to ruin it for the rest of us.

That's certianly true enough.

[Dr H]

Heh, some years ago my sister was dating a guy whose family had a clothing store in the Maxwell St. area. They used to get a lot of business from the gangbangers. One day, on a lark, they sewed some glittery logo (I don't remember what it was) on a baseball cap and put a $500 price tag on it.

The gangbangers couldn't get enough of them! They would come into the store and ask for the "500 hat", it became quite the status symbol for them. The power of marketing! :p

In my bygone youth I did a stint in retail, much of it working in music stores. I learned that you couldn't judge your customers by their appearance 'cause even professional musicians can be a pretty scrufty lot. When a guy walked in looking (and sometimes smelling) like he slept the night in his clothes in a dumpster, he might just be there to warm up between pan-handling shifts, or he might buy a $1000 guitar off the rack -- happened more than a few times.

Though I'll admit that even my jaw dropped the time the clean-cut young guy in a gray business suit -- looked like a bank cashier, or something similar -- bashed a display window with a brick and did a smash-and-grab on a $2000 trumpet, in broad daylight.

You can't trust anybody -- but you gotta trust somebody.

[PhantomWolf]

That does raise some interesting possibilities.

Say a bunch of teenage girls flash on the idea that burkhas are really handy garb for shoplifting sprees, offering both ample pleaces to stash pilfered merchandise and concealment of identity from surveillance cameras. So they form a gang in which the gang fashion du jour is burkhas.

Now the store/mall has a case for banning people wearing burkhas from their business establishment, on the one hand, but if they do this they are undoubtedly going to end up excluding legitimate shoppers of certain religious affiliations, which is almost certainly illegal.

I have to admit that I'm not sure whether it's a ban on hoodies, or just on wearing hoodies up that is in place in this particular mall, but in NZ malls basically ban the practice of wearing the hoodie up, this doesn't impinge on the practice of wearing what you like, it just specifies how items must be worn on those premises. I'd note that we have had other real clothing bans in publicish areas. When the 2007 Sevens was in Wellington the Borat swim suit was extremely popular. In 2008 it was banned.

[Uncle Otto]

Swimsuits are underwear, more or less. I don't see how you could regard seeing someone's underwear as indecent exposure as long as the material is thick enough to not be see-through.



I agree. There is a beach near where I live where people are seen walking around wearing nothing but G-strings. It's not a nude beach. There is nothing illegal about it. It seems that the standard is different for different people in different places. But then a beach is not a mall infested with the problems of theft, or the other problems associated with malls.


What's decent in one place becomes indecent in another.

[CORed]

The mall is private property. If they want to say you can't enter unless your are wearing purple pants and a blue shirt with yellow polka dots, both put on backwards, they have that right. If you don't like their silly rules, spend your money elsewhere.

[The Atheist]

Say a bunch of teenage girls flash on the idea that burkhas are really handy garb for shoplifting sprees, offering both ample pleaces to stash pilfered merchandise and concealment of identity from surveillance cameras. So they form a gang in which the gang fashion du jour is burkhas.

Why would it have to be girls?

With the full ninja on, it could just as easily be men under the material.

[qwints]

The mall is not private property in the sense that your house is. The United States, and many other countries, have laws preventing businessman from banning people from their property. It's a very firmly established principle that you can't just say, for example, no Irish.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Just a correction for everyone. It's not a "hoodie", it's a bunny hug. That's what it should be called. Well, that's what it used to be called, when I was a kid.


Oh yeah, it's not a "couch", it's a chesterfield. Let's all call it a chesterfield. It just sounds better.

[PhantomWolf]

The mall is not private property in the sense that your house is. The United States, and many other countries, have laws preventing businessman from banning people from their property. It's a very firmly established principle that you can't just say, for example, no Irish.

Of course you can also give any Irishman that enters a trespass order and have them removed if you were really nasty, but "being Irish" probably isn't a very good reason to put on the Trespass notice.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The mall is not private property in the sense that your house is. The United States, and many other countries, have laws preventing businessman from banning people from their property. It's a very firmly established principle that you can't just say, for example, no Irish.
Poor analogy. The laws are about, as you say, banning people from the property. But rules against hats are not rules that ban people; they ban clothing. "Irish" and "hat-wearer" are simply not comparable cases, not least because the hat-wearer can remove himself from the banned category with a minimal expenditure of time and energy.

[Euromutt]

Poor analogy. The laws are about, as you say, banning people from the property. But rules against hats are not rules that ban people; they ban clothing. "Irish" and "hat-wearer" are simply not comparable cases, not least because the hat-wearer can remove himself from the banned category with a minimal expenditure of time and energy.
The hat, yes, but what if it's something else? Say, the combination of an American football jersey and Timberland boots? I mention this because I recall reading an article four or five years ago about a mall that had banned exactly that combination because it was fashionable among the local black gang-bangers at the time.

So you're wearing this combo, and mall security tells you that the dress code prohibits it. Hey, guess what? Now you're in violation of the "no shoes, no shirt" policy.

But that particular example is relevant because the mall did not enforce its dress code consistently. They harassed black guys wearing football jerseys and Timberlands, but not white guys. So it was rather evident that the "dress code" was a fig leaf for another policy, namely "no young black guys." But that would have been discriminatory (and thus illegal for a business open to the public) so instead someone had hit on the idea of banning clothing that was popular with young black guys and using that as excuse to throw them out.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The hat, yes, but what if it's something else? Say, the combination of an American football jersey and Timberland boots?
It's still not the same situation. The Irish guy is just hosed. No Irish means no Irish. He comes back tomorrow, he's still Irish. If jersey-boot guy gets asked to leave, he can come back after a change of clothes (in fact, since often jerseys are worn with an undershirt, he might be able to just remove the jersey, but whatever). The person has not been banned, only the clothing.

[Foolmewunz]

Hey, great avatar you have there mate!

Your Mrs must be particularly good looking - your kid looks quite normal.

Thanks, .... I think.

But I'm beginning to wonder. According to yon bilogical clock on the wall, he was born exactly 40 weeks after Dec 24 '07. Now, who's out and about late on Dec 24 and dressed in that sort of outfit? Hmmmm? Just asking questions, you know.

(And saving someone else a bloody nose if they dared to make the same joke before I thought it up.)

Mebbe I've spent too many months in Conspiracy Theories?

[The Atheist]

Mebbe I've spent too many months in Conspiracy Theories?

Yep, stupid is contagious!

:bgrin:

[Dr H]

Why would it have to be girls?

No particular reason, I suppose.

Women just tend to be one of the first things that comes to mind -- my mind, anyway. ;)

[Dr H]

Oh yeah, it's not a "couch", it's a chesterfield. Let's all call it a chesterfield. It just sounds better.

Geez, when I was a kid a "chesterfield" was a cigarette.

[qwints]

Of course you can also give any Irishman that enters a trespass order and have them removed if you were really nasty, but "being Irish" probably isn't a very good reason to put on the Trespass notice.

No, you couldn't. Or rather, you could be sued if you did.

I want to point out that I'm not necessarily opposed to the particular policy, but merely arguing that you shouldn't simply say that private property means unlimited discretion.

I agree that there is a difference between banning clothes and banning people. The interesting question comes when the clothing is linked to a particular class of people.

[PhantomWolf]

No, you couldn't. Or rather, you could be sued if you did.

I want to point out that I'm not necessarily opposed to the particular policy, but merely arguing that you shouldn't simply say that private property means unlimited discretion.

I agree that there is a difference between banning clothes and banning people. The interesting question comes when the clothing is linked to a particular class of people.

Well no, if you put "For being Irish" on the notice, then yes, but if the notice was applied for "being disruptive" this is a subjective thing and any court case would have trouble showing that the owner wasn't allowed to do it.

[I Ratant]

A former sailor I worked with mentioned that some areas in Norfolk VA near the naval base in WWII posted signs like "Sailors and dogs, keep off the grass".
Few dogs read, so the thrust of the sign was quite discriminatory!

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Geez, when I was a kid a "chesterfield" was a cigarette.


I hope I'm enriching your vocabulary. Feel free to introduce this word to your friends and family. I want to reclaim "chesterfield".

[Smackety]

A few weeks ago I was in Circuit City when a couple of "gangsta-looking dicks" dropped about $4K on a big-screen TV and home theater setup. Cash.

Yeah, by all means roust those vermin out.

After they've spent their money, of course.

Any blood stains on the cash? White powder? Funny smell?

[fuelair]

Of course. See the landmark case, Shirtless Shoeless Hungry Guy With Cash to Spend vs. Jeannies Rusty Fly Diner of Tuscaloosa.
If he was in Tuscaloosa he should have been having the World's Best Ribs at Dreamland.

[qwints]

Well no, if you put "For being Irish" on the notice, then yes, but if the notice was applied for "being disruptive" this is a subjective thing and any court case would have trouble showing that the owner wasn't allowed to do it.

It's easier to prove than you might think. Fair housing organizations bread and butter job is finding landlords who won't rent to protected classes.

[Prometheus]

Yeah, the whole "de-pawing" thing in Islamic countries probably puts the kibbosh on the female shoplifting. I was fortunate enough to visit Dubai and walk through one of their shopping malls. Good Lord, man. Puts anything I've seen in the States to SHAME. And I'd say that the ratio of women who were uncovered to women in traditional garb was about half and half...This was the UAE, and I actually felt really safe there as an obvious American serviceman. I would bet that the women have no need to shoplift. If they're wives or concubines of a sheik or oil magnate, let's face it. They're friggin' LOADED.

I lived in a Dubai shopping mall around 10 years ago (they had a 5-star hotel/condo complex above the parking garage, and my employer provided me with a condo there). I've never seen anything like that level of opulence in the States. They used to give away new Porsche Boxters and Mercedes SLK's weekly just to entice shoppers in the doors.

[Foolmewunz]

If he was in Tuscaloosa he should have been having the World's Best Ribs at Dreamland.

[Derail]

Food Fight!!!!!

Arthur Bryant's in Kansas City.
Corky's in Memphis.
(But I've never been to Dreamland - in fact not sure if I've been in Tuscaloosa in maybe forty years...)

[End Derail]

[Autolite]

I was at the WalMart today wearing my hoodie, parka, balaclava, coveralls and mukluks. No-one said anything to me about it. It was about -27 degrees outside so when the "ganstas" start wearing hoodies, parkas, balaclavas, coveralls and mukluks I guess I'm screwed...:(

[luchog]

I understand that it would most certainly have negative connotations. However, not having been a quasi-goth since my Bauhaus and Denny's at 4am days, I'm not familiar what it means in the context of a goth kid wearing it. Is it some kind of subculture lingo amongst modern goths? (AKA the 'X' for straight-edge punks, 88/18 tats for Neo-Nazis, etc.)
It's not Goths, it's Rivetheads, and is part of the German Industrial/EBM music scene trendoid look.

[CORed]

The mall is not private property in the sense that your house is. The United States, and many other countries, have laws preventing businessman from banning people from their property. It's a very firmly established principle that you can't just say, for example, no Irish.

In the US, You can't ban somebody from a "public accommodation" (and I think a mall would be included in this) on the basis of ethnic group, religious affiliation or other "protected classes". However, I'm pretty sure that you can set any dress code you want. Lots of bars and restaurants do so, and I don't think a store or a mall would be any different.

[gnome]

But, if you could prove it was being enforced selectively as a cover for a discrimination that ISN'T legal, you've got a case.

[quarky]

Shop-lifting is good for the economy.

A society without crime is scarier than we like to admit.
We are quite dependent on the criminal element.

[mikeyx]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24293567-23272,00.html

I had an intresting experience in a mall in CT. First my brother was asked to remove his hoodie, while plenty of people had hats on, and my mother was asked to show an ID when she purchased a video game that was rated M for violence. It was the new SOCOM for ps3. My mother is 54. Perhaps the next thing that in the state of CT will be to make people show ID if they wish to purchase a Bible, Quran, Bagavad gita or shakesphere. They all have plenty of violence in them. I think this violates privacy because I shouldn't have to reveal to a store clerk where I live if I want to purchase media of which liberals don't approve.

I never knew there was a dress code in malls. I was under the impression that you could wear what ever you wanted in them. Are people going to be told to tuck their shirts in and wear long skirts next? But not in the state of CT it seems.

I find it outrageous that this ban doesn't extend to turbans and burkas and all forms of head wear. Isn't it discrimination to say that Muslims and Indians can wear head gear, while secular people and Christians can't? If these malls wish to serve the public, than I don't believe they should be able to descriminate against anyone. The more I think about it the more angry I get in fact. Some times I where a hoodie if I didn't brush my hair. If a member of any religious group doesn't have to show their hair in a public place than neither do I.

Im from there, name the mall.

[mikeyx]

Do muslim chicks have to take the ninja outfit off their face before going to the mall?

most of the muslimas I have seen in my neck of the woods............. CT, have worn just a head scarf and its never been an issue, this may have more to do with ignorance.

[soylent]

(I don't know why but every time I see someone do this it infuriates me.)

Is it because they're people who would never otherwise shop-lift, but somehow giving in to their annoying child and letting them eat stuff in the store they usually have no intention of ever paying for seems alright?

[eromitlab]

just ban the kids...

glenn:boxedin:

The two largest local malls in my city do that after 6pm on Fridays and Saturdays; if the kids in question are "unescorted", that is.

[GreNME]

Shop-lifting is good for the economy.

A society without crime is scarier than we like to admit.
We are quite dependent on the criminal element.

Please to `splain, thankyew. I'd appreciate it if you could do the entire explanation in that 'gravitas meter' that I imagined your post being spoken in.

[Euromutt]

Is it because they're people who would never otherwise shop-lift, but somehow giving in to their annoying child and letting them eat stuff in the store they usually have no intention of ever paying for seems alright?
He mentioned "bringing the empty wrapper for the cashier to scan," so non-payment isn't part of the consideration here.

[quarky]

Please to `splain, thankyew. I'd appreciate it if you could do the entire explanation in that 'gravitas meter' that I imagined your post being spoken in.

what's a 'gravitas meter'?

[richardm]

what's a 'gravitas meter'?

A device for measuring a quantity of gravitas ;)

[The Atheist]

what's a 'gravitas meter'?

Opposite of a BS meter - measures seriousness.

[CORed]

Baseball caps are only antisocial if you wear them backwards or sideways. :-)

[GreNME]

what's a 'gravitas meter'?

I used meter as in the pacing used by writers, poets, playwrites, and so on. Think Shakespeare and the iambic pentameter. As for gravitas, well, your tone didn't sound joking. Together it forms a style that, while assuming seriousness by the composer, one usually has a problem taking seriously. To be blunt, I had a hard time taking your comment seriously because of the way your post flowed. I'm not entirely convinced you either a. really believe it or b. have really thought it through.

But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. :)

[quarky]

Thanks for the explanation.
I think i was serious. Being a bit dismayed at the flow of socially acceptable behaviour, I've somewhat romanticised anti-social behaviour....as long as it isn't cruel. I'm cooked on the whole shopping phenomena; malls; mcmansions, etc.

I enjoy a little 'edge'; some small blows against the machine. If there was none, it would be a much less interesting world. I've never shop-lifted myself. Its too much like shopping for my tastes.

[qwints]

Most shop-lifting isn't done by rebellious teenage youths, but by organized teams of professionals. (Or so the corporate news tells me.)

[Hindmost]

The shoplifting numbers in this article surprised me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/us/23shoplift.html

glenn

[quarky]

Yet, crime still contributes to the GNP. Without crime, there would be lots of people out of a job. Crime helps money flow.

[learner]

Baseball caps are only antisocial if you wear them backwards or sideways. :-)

I thought they made them with the peak at the back. doh!

[Prometheus]

Yet, crime still contributes to the GNP. Without crime, there would be lots of people out of a job. Crime helps money flow.

So do war and disease. What's your point?

[quarky]

That Hoodies should be allowed in malls?

(I forget)

[Morrigan]

I would bet that the women have no need to shoplift. If they're wives or concubines of a sheik or oil magnate, let's face it. They're friggin' LOADED.

Yeah, rich folks never shoplift. Or do they... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winona_ryder#2001_shoplifting_incident)


A couple of Goths walked around with "ausrotten" embroidered on their silve and black costumes.
I spoke to Mall security, and these no longer fester at the Mall.

Probably just a band logo, but I bet you're proud of showing them young whippersnappers what an upstanding citizen you are, eh? Nevermind that goth merch tends to cost really high so they probably contribute more to the mall economy than most shoppers do...

Wow, I can't actually believe that people are arguing that private businesses shouldn't have the right to require and enforce dress codes.
I don't know about that. I see many people who are arguing that while they have that right, they think the rules are stupid, though. Do they have the right to say the rules are stupid?

Asking for hoodies to be down indoors (where you don't need hoodies)
A co-worker of mine frequently wears his hoodie indoors... in the summer. Because the air conditioning is so ridiculously high that he feels cold without it, and can work more comfortably with his hood pulled off.
Seeing as the AC in malls is always turned on to eleven, I'm not entirely sure hoodies shouldn't be worn indoors. :p


Just because someone decides to make a rule doesn't necessarily mean that the rule is either moral or legal.
Yup.