Skirt wearer turned away

Discussion of fashion elements and looks that are traditionally considered somewhat "femme" but are presented in a masculine context. This is NOT about transvestism or crossdressing.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4188
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by STEVIE »

Sinned wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:23 am I left a comment to stir up the hornet's nest
Rather seems you succeeded too Dennis!
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3988
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by Fred in Skirts »

STEVIE wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:41 pm
Sinned wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:23 am I left a comment to stir up the hornet's nest
Rather seems you succeeded too Dennis!
I could not find the comment section on the article site.
Nor a place on the restaurant web site.
"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951
Always be yourself because the people that matter don’t mind and the ones that mind don’t matter.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am
Location: Southeast Michigan

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by Coder »

Fred in Skirts wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:48 pm
STEVIE wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:41 pm
Sinned wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:23 am I left a comment to stir up the hornet's nest
Rather seems you succeeded too Dennis!
I could not find the comment section on the article site.
Nor a place on the restaurant web site.
You have to click "comments" at the top and they slide in from the side.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by Stu »

I am no apologist for the woke or diversity-obsessed brigade, but this is outrageous. Who decides what clothes are appropriate for what gender?
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1923
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by pelmut »

moonshadow wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:24 pm
pelmut wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:13 pm That's an interesting distinction.  One is discriminating against someone because of what they choose to be or do, the other would be discriminating against someone on the grounds of what they are and have no power to change.
[...]
On the LGBTQ matter, many people have deep religious concerns for being required to render service to LGBT people.
Would that also apply if they refused service to disabled people or black people or left-handed people?  If not, why not?   The difficulty here is that LG&B are seen as preferences and T is lumped in with them as though it was a lifestyle choice. It is no more a choice than being born left-handed or with dark skin.  They might say they don't approve of the way LG&B people behave and I would be sympathetic to them for refusing if they were asked to help those people to behave in that way, but I would not support them refusing to give ordinary everyday service.  In the case of T people, what are they being asked to assist with that they disapprove of?
Religion is also a choice, but both are protected by the same constitutional amendment... so which one cancels the other out?
Religion is a choice, but transgender is not; religious people can believe what they like, as deeply as they like, but if they try to put discrimination into practice they should be given no special consideration under the law.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
Ralph
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:07 pm

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by Ralph »

I'm with Moon on this one. Whenever we impose mandates on behaviour to support the things we want mandated, it opens the door for those same mandates to be used against us (or to support things we find loathesome) later. This is why I grudgingly support the right of hate groups to openly be arseholes.
Ralph!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14432
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by crfriend »

Fred in Skirts wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:29 pmFrom their website "THE DRESS CODE"

Dress code: Monticello is a upscale R&B live Entertainment Restaurant.
I am actually quite fine indeed with the Dress Code as it stands, italics and whatnot included. There really should be some standards in public life.

Virtually nothing I own would fall 'foul of the rules, either for men or for women. The sole exception is that I have been known to wear dressy camisoles as "up top" cover in stupidly hot weather when I'd be sat out-of-doors because of the SARS-CoV-2 problem. I note strongly that there are no restrictions for men or for women regarding "shorts", hence short skirts would be OK, and there is no stricture against men wearing skirts.

Regarding the public commentary that the establishment felt the need to make, the devil of course was in the "fine print" and that's that quite likely the person denied entry wasn't recognisable in the Government issued ID, indicating that the individual had substantially altered his/her/its appearance. This is an excusable offence, and should not be cause for drawing fire, because if something had gone wrong the establishment could have been held accountable for the error.

In short, it's your typical tempest in a teapot.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by moonshadow »

Fred in Skirts wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:48 pm
STEVIE wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:41 pm
Sinned wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:23 am I left a comment to stir up the hornet's nest
Rather seems you succeeded too Dennis!
I could not find the comment section on the article site.
Nor a place on the restaurant web site.
There used to be a comment button, but I have poured over that page up one side and down the other on my phone and on my laptop... that comment button is GONE. If it is there, they did a bang up job hiding it!
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by moonshadow »

pelmut wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:11 pm Would that also apply if they refused service to disabled people or black people or left-handed people? If not, why not?
There are a lot of people out there who think so. Thankfully very few seem to be in business. In fact, it seems a lot of them are drawing a social security disability check.

Our laws are far from perfect, and our society leaves a lot to be desired, but this is the way things are.

Yes, I respect people's right to be a jerk. I simply try to avoid those people, and they pretty much avoid me, and that's okay with me. I'm perfectly fine to stay away from their gathering places.

I also have a right to stick up head up in a hornets nest... but that doesn't mean I should.
pelmut wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:11 pm They might say they don't approve of the way LG&B people behave and I would be sympathetic to them for refusing if they were asked to help those people to behave in that way,
Behave in what way?
pelmut wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:11 pm Religion is a choice, but transgender is not; religious people can believe what they like, as deeply as they like, but if they try to put discrimination into practice they should be given no special consideration under the law.
Well, technically religion is a choice, but in fairness, maybe it's more like a belief, or a means of identity (e.g. someone who identifies as "Christian") I suppose one could force themself to not believe a certain way... but when I really think about it... could we? For example, I identify as agnostic, but one who upholds many of the teachings of Christ, but there is more to it than that, once it's all said and done, and the end of the day, when the lights are out and I'm alone with my thoughts, I admit there is still a little spark in me that believes in his salvation.

In all fairness, this is probably due to my protestant Christian upbringing. It was drilled into my head since the day I learned to talk and listen. I realize there is no logic in this. My conscious mind knows it's just a cultural story, but my subconscious just can't seem to switch the "belief" off, no matter how hard I try.

I've toyed with a philosophy that religion and gender have much more in common that most people would admit. Both involve something that each individual "believes". Both are matters of the mind. Both can be rooted in a form of spiritualism. Science struggles to explain both. Both defy what appears to be obvious to an observer that doesn't share the beliefs (e.g. the atheist can not feel the presence of God and the anti-trans group only see's a man in a dress, or a butch woman).

I've even suggested that the transgender ideology should have branded itself as a religion, then it would enjoy protection at the highest level of law (in the U.S. anyway), and there's no reason that such a religion couldn't include theology from other religions such as Christianity, Islam, etc, just like an agnostic fem-boy like me can mix a world of Christian teachings, Wiccan, New Age, etc in his overall theology. There are no limits to what my mind will ponder, but it has the unfortunate side effect of being wrong 99% of the time as I explore my various thoughts, and being horrible at debating.

Nobody has yet to agree with me on combining transgenderism and religion, and I respect that, but I still argue that religion and gender are VERY much intertwined, just look at the strict gender roles prescribed in the major religions. it is apparent that gender is a central theme among many of them. My [sometimes masculine, sometimes feminine] gender and my religion are two parts of a vast array of characteristics that make me who I am. Without either I lose a significant part of what makes me me, as is indicated in my declaration of religion freedom.

Just food for thought, not saying that's the way things should be, just sharing some of the wandering thoughts of a wayfaring stranger, a-travlin' through this world of woe.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
rode_kater
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by rode_kater »

pelmut wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:13 pm That's an interesting distinction.  One is discriminating against someone because of what they choose to be or do, the other would be discriminating against someone on the grounds of what they are and have no power to change.
That is indeed the general structure of the law here: you can't discriminate on attributes that a person cannot change and are not relevant for the situation. So a one-legged person can be refused enrolment in a commercial pilots training on the grounds that they cannot meet the physical requirements. Once it was broadly accepted that being homosexual was not just a choice, it became illegal to discriminate on that basis.

The choice of clothing is an interesting one. Yes, you can discriminate on the basis of style of clothing, such as saying "smart casual" or some such (as long as it is clearly communicated beforehand). In workplaces you can insist on clothing that is safe around machinery. But can you refuse a man in a dress in a store? Here it gets fuzzier. What you wear is constitutionally protected freedom of expression, which is a broader category than freedom of speech. Your constitutional rights don't end at the door of the store. You can put in your house rules that clothing must be "appropriate" but that doesn't get you very far.

In practice it's not an issue because culturally it has been accepted that people can wear whatever they like (in a student city you sometimes see guys wearing a ridiculous dress for a day as a challenge) and the Dutch were always more interested in making money than imposing ideologies. When half the country was Catholic and the other half Protestant, imposing ideologies got old fast, but everyone agreed that more money was better.

(There's the joke that copper wire was invented by two Dutch people fighting over a cent).
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by moonshadow »

rode_kater wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:30 pm The choice of clothing is an interesting one. Yes, you can discriminate on the basis of style of clothing, such as saying "smart casual" or some such (as long as it is clearly communicated beforehand). In workplaces you can insist on clothing that is safe around machinery. But can you refuse a man in a dress in a store? Here it gets fuzzier.
I think that's basically the issue the SCOTUS was grappling with in 2020.

They basically echoed an argument that I've been pitching for years...

While yes the decision for a man to wear a dress is a choice, it is also a choice for a woman.

A man can not suddenly become a female from birth, or a cis-gendered woman, thus to deny a man a liberty that is granted to a woman simply on the grounds that he is a male would constitute discrimination in accordance with the civil rights act of 1964. We can not change the fact we were born with male anatomy.

That applies in most employment situations and interstate commerce only. The 1st amendment and the 14th amendment protects the male skirt wearer from the government (local, state, and federal level)

Or, to put it simply, as I explained to my hard-headed boss back in 2016... "if I were born with a vagina, we would not be having this unpleasant conversation, and that is the very definition of discrimination based on sex".

Three years later the SCOTUS agreed with me....

...maybe I missed my calling! :wink:
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1923
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by pelmut »

moonshadow wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:04 am
pelmut wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:11 pm They might say they don't approve of the way LG&B people behave and I would be sympathetic to them for refusing if they were asked to help those people to behave in that way,
Behave in what way?
I was mainly referring to the act of homosexual sex, but it could include a same-sex marriage ceremony if that particular religion specifically forbade it.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by Ray »

Religion should always be subordinate to the principle of equality and fairness. Dogma should never trump logic and equity.

I’d like to see all religions bend to the law and not vice versa.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by moonshadow »

Ray wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:49 pm Religion should always be subordinate to the principle of equality and fairness. Dogma should never trump logic and equity.
If only it were so. There is no reason why people can't practice their faith without being a jerk. Millions of religious people peacefully practice their faith and coexist happily with others of differing opinions.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14432
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Skirt wearer turned away

Post by crfriend »

moonshadow wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:30 pmThere is no reason why people can't practice their faith without being a jerk. Millions of religious people peacefully practice their faith and coexist happily with others of differing opinions.
Indeed it's millions. The problem is the thousands who insist on being jerks about it. It's almost always a minority that causes trouble.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Post Reply