Help me understand this...

[moonshadow]

One of the problems with mass punishment is that sometimes it's easy to stray across the boundary, be unaware of it, and get caught up in the messy results. I came into accidental violation of a stricture of "NO POLITICS" in a place I now frequent (having met a very nice retired EE there) when I wore my electric blue dress shirt with a canary yellow skirt (the colours of the Ukranian flag). Nobody gave me any grief about it at the time, but had they wanted they could have tossed me out on my ear. Ditto a very flashy outfit I had on yesterday evening of a pink dress shirt, a vivid purple skirt, and a black waistcoat. Had there been a ban on such colours I would have fallen foul of that -- even though I was dressed in the colours of the historic pdp11 computer -- and I'm well known as a computer historian!

What's interesting here is in some manner of speaking, it can be difficult to distinguish where an outfit becomes a political expression. I'd almost argue that the very act of a man wearing a skirt at all could be an act of politically motivated "speech". In fact, I've actively considered this to a considerable degree and have placed the argument in my "toolbox" should I ever run afoul of the increasingly authoritarian laws in the theocratic southern regimes I live in.

Don't think it can't happen [laws against crossdressing], we've been here before just 40 years ago. Wearing eccentric clothing, be it skirts, or some other outfit, can be, and often is a political statement, and is, or should be considered "free speech" and protected under the first amendment. [0] Some localities are trying to find ways to circumvent this. Tennessee and many other states ruled by the "American Taliban" toyed with this notion earlier this year with their laws banning male/female impersonators in the presence of children. I'm sorry Tennessee, the United States Constitution isn't suspended every time a child walks into the room. And just to be on the safe side, I still wear my Taliban shorts under skirts when I feel it necessary. Anyway, I digress...

The point being that a skirt could be considered political "speech" and subject to restriction in private spaces, including websites. But, say you're trans and suddenly various state or federal laws may protect you. Oh the tangled web we weave!

[0] Of course I do realize this only applies to the public square and not private businesses on private property. Thus, a private business would be within their right to prohibit any speech they want, including certain clothing items.

[rode_kater]

The point being that a skirt could be considered political "speech" and subject to restriction in private spaces, including websites. But, say you're trans and suddenly various state or federal laws may protect you. Oh the tangled web we weave!

[0] Of course I do realize this only applies to the public square and not private businesses on private property. Thus, a private business would be within their right to prohibit any speech they want, including certain clothing items.

Uhh, a private business you can walk into from the street in not a private space. Someone's home, that's a private space. The (e.g.) supermarket is part of the public space because it's open for everyone, it's a privately owned public space. Your rights do not end at the door of a shop. If you want to run a supermarket that's only open on appointment, you can. That would make it a private space, but probably not profitable.

That's how it works here anyway. Being a public space doesn't mean the owner cannot place any rules, stuff like "no skateboarding inside is fine". But limiting what people wear goes quite far and would certainly run afoul of all sorts of limits. Dress-codes are a thing in some places. But a supermarket with a dress-code would not be acceptable, as denying people access to supermarkets is seriously problematic in this day and age. Same applies to banks for example.

It fascinates me how Americans often spend a lot of time talking about rights, but simultaneously find it acceptable to lose them just because they walk through a door.

But to your original point: clothing is expression and can be (inadvertently or otherwise) considered political expression by others. This is what freedom of expression is supposed to protect you from.

[moonshadow]

Uhh, a private business you can walk into from the street in not a private space. Someone's home, that's a private space. The (e.g.) supermarket is part of the public space because it's open for everyone, it's a privately owned public space. Your rights do not end at the door of a shop. If you want to run a supermarket that's only open on appointment, you can.

It's complicated, and will vary by state and local jurisdiction here in the states.

It is generally understood that a business has the right to turn almost [0] anyone away.

[0] There are very specific exceptions of those of certain privilege. Not getting into that here.

[Layne]

Am I then only one that has grown tired of hearing about inclusion? We don’t all need to be welcomed everywhere? My right to wear what I want in no way supersedes your right to restrict dress (or anything else) in an establishment that you own. Why is this a tough concept?

[Fred in Skirts]

Am I then only one that has grown tired of hearing about inclusion? We don’t all need to be welcomed everywhere? My right to wear what I want in no way supersedes your right to restrict dress (or anything else) in an establishment that you own. Why is this a tough concept?

It is tough because a few who have feelings as thin as fairy floss cry very loud and raise such a stink that the people who make the rules listen to them and not the population at large. Then the news people get on the band wagon and make it worse because it sells the news papers and TV ads. That forces the rule making people to double down on the general population to force them to do what the cry babies want. The poor general population is then made to look like the bad guy!!!