There is a right to be barefoot

Vendoskt · Oct 13, 2014

There is a right to be barefoot. This right results from an individuals right to health. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles published in reputable medical journals all of which will tell you that nearly every lower body ailment has a higher occurrence in the shoe wearing population. People have the right for their health to not be infringed upon by the actions of others, and a requirement for shoes violates that right.

An analogy can be drawn from the smoking bans that are now in effect in may states. These bans are upheld in the courts because science tells us that people exposed to second hand smoke have a higher occurrence of certain ailments. Therefore, patrons to an establishment have the right to not be exposed to something that is scientifically documented to be detrimental to their health.

Many of the ailments that cause chronic pain is the back, hip, knees, and feet, all can be shown to have a higher occurrence in the shoe wearing population. We all have a right to not be exposed to that which has been documented to harm us.

What do you think?

Longboard · Oct 13, 2014

You are correct.

Barefoot TJ · Oct 14, 2014

Exactly! I like to use the tobacco company lawsuits' analogy when it comes to those of us who already suffer from the damage done by wearing "their" shoes.

Bare Lee · Oct 14, 2014

Что делать?

Like smoking, do we have to wait for enough studies to accumulate and be published in popular media, along with perhaps a class-action suit or two, before we can confidently tell store and restaurant owners that it is our right to enter unshod?

Is there anything we can do in the meantime? Telling people there's no health code and/or asking to sign a waiver assuming all responsibility for one's feet seems to have limited efficacy.

Maybe someone who's well-versed in the medical literature can write up a one-page pamphlet describing the health benefits of bare feet, with the relevant citations, along with the material exposing the health detriments of shod living? It would be great to hand that to uncooperative managers/owners. I tried handing over SBL's pamphlet, which includes a section on how insurance policy is unlikely to factor in, to the local mom and pop store, only to have a NoSSS sign appear on their door with the qualification "for insurance purposes" underneath. Clearly, they were less than impressed with SBL's argument. And they never apologized for just making up the bit about the health code.

But maybe taking a civil right tact might work, who knows?

Kyrrinstoch · Oct 15, 2014

Lee, as you know, a business (in the US) has the right to refuse service/access to anyone for any reason as long as it's not discriminatory based on age, race, gender, dis/ability, religion, etc.

As we saw at the Longfellow Grille on Sat, they can present any argument they want (legally sound or not) to ask us to leave. If we refuse, we are then trespassing and can be removed by the police and potentially arrested for it (wouldn't THAT make for a headline - "Barefoot runners arrested for patronizing local restaurant").

Unfortunately, no amount of "forcibly educating" business owners by citing medical studies, court cases, insurance regulations or health codes will change that. We've seen how successful that method is for getting people to quit smoking...

What will change it is to have more people try to patronize a business while barefoot. If a business owner recognizes that they're losing a not insignificant amount of business by turning that group away, then they will reconsider their policy.

To be honest, the only issue I had with the restaurant was that they did not have any type of "NoSSS" policy posted or conveyed before we sat down on the patio (I thought one of our group even double-checked that it was ok before we did so...).

Longboard · Oct 15, 2014

Sometimes the owner just doesn't want dirty bare feet INSIDE their restaurant. In this case I actually complied with their wishes!

SI barefoot · Oct 15, 2014

I like it. Where's Johnny Cochran when you need him? Seriously though, the right lawyer could help.

SI barefoot · Oct 15, 2014

losing a not insignificant amount of business by turning that group away

Isn't that like one of those double negative things, lol

Bare Lee · Oct 16, 2014

Kyrrinstoch said:
Lee, as you know, a business (in the US) has the right to refuse service/access to anyone for any reason as long as it's not discriminatory based on age, race, gender, dis/ability, religion, etc.

Right, I think what Vendoskt is saying is that it could be construed as a type of reverse disability discrimination. You're asking someone to harm their feet, to disable themselves, in order to come in. Granted, in our case, it's hard to see how any real harm could be done by sitting with uncomfortably hot feet for an hour or two, and in fact, I removed the shoes Steve lent me under the table, as they were quite hot. I do this all the time and no one complains.

Still, I think if the case could be made that shoes are bad for the feet, this could supersede the owner's right to impose a dress code. But I'm not a lawyer.

In general, though, I'm not militant about it. I usually just ask to sign a waiver, if they bring up the insurance bogey man, and flatly tell them there is no health code, if that's their approach, and then give up if they continue to insist, as I did last Saturday.

Thanks again, by the way, for running at my pace. Hard to believe that just a year ago I could run 90 seconds per mile faster. I've gotta get my a$$ in gear.

Vendoskt · Oct 16, 2014

Bare Lee said:
Right, I think what Vendoskt is saying is that it could be construed as a type of reverse disability discrimination. You're asking someone to harm their feet, to disable themselves, in order to come in. Granted, in our case, it's hard to see how any real harm could be done by sitting with uncomfortably hot feet for an hour or two

Yes, that is exactly my point. While I would agree that a habitual barefooter would probably suffer no harm from having to wear shoes for an hour or so, I would also agree that a non-smoker who is exposed to second hand smoke for only a short period of time probably won’t get lung cancer because of it. However, the fact that second hand smoke in general increases the chances of getting lung cancer is a compelling enough argument for smoking bans to stand.

Bare Lee said:
Maybe someone who's well-versed in the medical literature can write up a one-page pamphlet describing the health benefits of bare feet, with the relevant citations, along with the material exposing the health detriments of shod living? It would be great to hand that to uncooperative managers/owners.

I’m in the very, very, early stages of writing a comprehensive book on the subject. I’m glad you brought up a concise 1 page pamphlet as well, I never thought of that. While I am not a medical doctor, I am less than a year away from earning my PhD in physics, so hopefully the Dr. before my name gives the book some more credibility. I’m just collecting information right now. I have about 100 journal articles on the subject, and there are many more for me to dig up yet. Becomes well-versed will mean reading all of those articles, so it’s going to take some time.

Bare Lee said:
Still, I think if the case could be made that shoes are bad for the feet, this could supersede the owner's right to impose a dress code. But I'm not a lawyer.

I’m no lawyer either, but I think you are entirely correct. I think there is a very important distinction that barefooters need to make. This has nothing to do with free speech; it is a right to health issue. You will always lose if you make it a free speech issue. Businesses have the right to control the appearance of their workers and customers. From the viewpoint of health, wearing a suit and tie vs. wearing a t-shirt and sweat pants has no significant health difference. You can be kicked out of a store for wearing and obscenity on your shirt, or kicked out of a black tie restaurant for not dressing up to their standards. While you have free speech rights to wear whatever you want, businesses have freedom of association rights. However, the second they mess with your feet, they are infringing on your right to health, because it does matter what is on your feet. OSHA regulations, health regulations, smoking bans, they all are in place so that a business does not hurt their customers or employees, not so that the customer or employees doesn’t hurt (or not hurt) themselves. For example, a store does their due diligence by posting a wet floor sign around a spill in a timely manner, and clean up the spill in a timely manner. Posting the sign is all the business can do. You still have every right to step on that wet floor, but if you fall it is your own damn fault. However, if you get hurt due to an arbitrary rule a business forced you to obey, whose fault is that? Why is it that Philip Morris can’t force their employees to smoke cigarettes while at work? After all, Philip Morris has every right to control the appearance of their employees, and since Philip Morris makes cigarettes, it would look good for the company if all their employees enjoyed the products they make while on the job. Of course, Philip Morris can’t do this because it violates their employees’ right to health, which supersedes the employer’s right to establish a dress or appearance code.

Kyrrinstoch said:
What will change it is to have more people try to patronize a business while barefoot. If a business owner recognizes that they're losing a not insignificant amount of business by turning that group away, then they will reconsider their policy.

I think patronizing businesses while barefoot is a start, but this gives the cause limited exposure. This should be an issue that is brought to the forefront. Right now I like to use running races to bring awareness to the issue. Running the race barefoot draws attention, and I like to use the attention to advocate for individuals right to be barefoot. Ideally, it would be great to start public demonstrations, maybe have the first Saturday of every month be barefoot rights awareness day. If you don’t shut up people will start to notice, and if you don’t shut up, people will have to listen to your arguments, and that is how you win people over. I believe that engaging non-barefooters, making them aware of the issue, and making them support the issue even though they themselves might not be barefooters, is the only way to make progress.

Kyrrinstoch · Oct 16, 2014

Bare Lee said:
Thanks again, by the way, for running at my pace. Hard to believe that just a year ago I could run 90 seconds per mile faster. I've gotta get my a$$ in gear.

Lee, no problem. It was, after all a Group Run and not a race and I enjoyed the conversation.

I figure the best approach we can take since we're not medical or insurance experts (not most of us anyways) is to make our displeasure with the business' footwear policy known to the business and that our response to said policy is to take our business elsewhere until they change it, effectively boycotting their business.

Some may care, others won't. Those that don't probably wouldn't be the kind of businesses that many of us would want to frequent anyways....

Josh16 · Oct 16, 2014

Kyrrinstoch said:
Lee, no problem. It was, after all a Group Run and not a race and I enjoyed the conversation.

I figure the best approach we can take since we're not medical or insurance experts (not most of us anyways) is to make our displeasure with the business' footwear policy known to the business and that our response to said policy is to take our business elsewhere until they change it, effectively boycotting their business.

Some may care, others won't. Those that don't probably wouldn't be the kind of businesses that many of us would want to frequent anyways....

I don't see that as being very effective. To be honest, one person isn't exactly THAT much business to them. So unless you carry a lot of barefooters in your back pockets, I don't see this as being very helpful. Especially if the shopowner/manager considers the fact that most other clients would rather not see people barefoot and WILL complain to management about it.

To me, the real problem isn't so much management as it is the other people who will complain to management about you being barefoot.

Kyrrinstoch · Oct 16, 2014

Josh16 said:
I don't see that as being very effective. To be honest, one person isn't exactly THAT much business to them. So unless you carry a lot of barefooters in your back pockets, I don't see this as being very helpful. Especially if the shopowner/manager considers the fact that most other clients would rather not see people barefoot and WILL complain to management about it.

To me, the real problem isn't so much management as it is the other people who will complain to management about you being barefoot.

Josh, I agree. It is a limited approach. But I've found telling a company (particularly the owner/operator) why I won't patronize their business is a far more effective tool than simply not going there or publicly trying to argue with them.

Overall though, it does come down to exposure and public acceptance. At this stage, barefooters are still considered an "alternative" and challenge society's general preconceptions of what's "normal". This preconception is what needs to change. We've seen these same preconceptions get challenged and fall in the past - from bloodletting using leeches and tomatoes being poisonous to women's skirt lengths and interracial relationships and all manner of things in between were all considered "the norm" until enough public awareness forced them to be changed.

The biggest challenge in this case is that there is an entire multi-billion dollar industry trying to keep people using their products, regardless if they're actually good for them or not. Unlike the tobacco industry however, the Catch-22 arises in that for a lot of things we do, we actually do need to wear something to protect our feet....

Josh16 · Oct 16, 2014

^^^^
I get your point. I just want to say we are kind of short on means to make this happen.

I'd say not just about what is normal or what isn't as much as it is about fear. We have to draw attention to both aspects. Fear of sharp objects and its damages to ones feet is one example, bacteria and fungus is another.

I don't believe we'll see much change in this department unless lawsuits happen. I don't know where you live, but here I don't have much power. If I don't buy stuff at one business, odds are I can't buy it elsewhere. If I can't play golf in one place, I don't have much other than to stop playing golf unless I play shod.

Don't get me started on curling shoes. I have to wear toe cramping 3 inches high cement blocks in my feet every time. There's not even some type of minimalist curling shoe I could purchase with zero drop and wide toebox. I could possibly purchase a minimalist shoe and get outfitted adequately which would cost a whopping 300$. Alright, that was more of an off-topic rant, though.

On topic though, I haven't found anything in the charter of rights and freedom about a right to health in Canada.

Edit : There is however a right to a healthy environment.

Vendoskt · Oct 17, 2014

Looking at the issue from the stores point of view: They see bare feet as a liability, and they see shoes as a safeguard against that liability. I firmly believe that they cannot force me into shoes as it violates my right to health, but they do have every right to RECOMMEND shoes. Wouldn't posting such a recommendation free them of any liability from injuries that shoes could have prevented? Therefore, the business owner/manager can feel safe from any liability while not kicking paying customers out of their stores.

Hobbit · Oct 18, 2014

I think there is another point: with a lot of people the first gut reaction when being confronted with dirty feet is disgust. Immediately afterwards they try to rationalize this feeling of disgust based on experience of their own feet when finally freed from shoes: stinky, germy, and with a generally unhealthy aspect: this should not be allowed where other people (= other customers in a store) could be put off by the sight and/or odor. Hence the invention of "health codes" ...
Non-barefooters have strictly no idea that feet which are allowed to be bare all time are neither smelly nor full of germs (at least not more than shoe soles or bare hands)

Bare Lee · Oct 18, 2014

Vendoskt said:
Looking at the issue from the stores point of view: They see bare feet as a liability, and they see shoes as a safeguard against that liability. I firmly believe that they cannot force me into shoes as it violates my right to health, but they do have every right to RECOMMEND shoes. Wouldn't posting such a recommendation free them of any liability from injuries that shoes could have prevented? Therefore, the business owner/manager can feel safe from any liability while not kicking paying customers out of their stores.

I think, ironically, according to the SBL (Society for Barefoot Living) pamphlet, as soon as they demand or recommend shoes, they assume something like "interest" (in legalese) in your feet, so that they actually become more responsible for anything that should happen to them rather than less.

Hobbit said:
I think there is another point: with a lot of people the first gut reaction when being confronted with dirty feet is disgust. Immediately afterwards they try to rationalize this feeling of disgust based on experience of their own feet when finally freed from shoes: stinky, germy, and with a generally unhealthy aspect: this should not be allowed where other people (= other customers in a store) could be put off by the sight and/or odor. Hence the invention of "health codes" ...
Non-barefooters have strictly no idea that feet which are allowed to be bare all time are neither smelly nor full of germs (at least not more than shoe soles or bare hands)

Yah, I agree, that's the main misconception and the heart of the problem.

The only solution is to dress like Tarzan in order to bring in an overriding positive connotation that may cancel out the image of their own pathetic, atrophied and fungal feet that haunts them with every step they take.

Sid · Oct 19, 2014

It seems that Walmart is glad to have any shopper with money.
It seems that Walmart is agreeable to hiring anyone who is willing to work for low wages.
Is this diversity?

Sid · Oct 19, 2014

It had been quite a while since I had bought eggs. When I went to the store, I was surprised by all of the options: omega 3, cage free, free range, pastured, organic, vegetarian fed. Having all these options assist groceries to substantially maximize profit.

Four star hotels will welcome patrons without shirts and shoes at the poolside lounge, yet they have a dress code for their fine dining establishments. Beachside businesses are often less likely to have a rigorous dress code. Hotels and beachside businesses are often barefoot friendly in order to substantially maximize profit. If there is an opportunity to maximize profit, business are very capable of educating themselves about relevant laws and health codes (if any).

Restaurant bars tolerate rowdy, obnoxious behavior more so on game nights. Restaurants regularly welcome groups of rowdy, sweaty, malodorous, disheveled patrons every week, such as the local running clubs after a weekly run. Restaurants do this to substantially maximize profit.

Luxery-focused business have learned to discriminate based not on race, gender, clothes, language, or cultural background, but rather on ability to pay. Business have done this to substantially maximize profit.

Businesses are interested in substantially maximizing profit.

Barefooters with pamphlets, wishing to spread a message of acceptance and education, are not assisting businesses in substantially maximizing profit.
Barefooters, wishing to be accommodated for disabilities, are not assisting business in substantially maximizing profit.
These activities may be very important and have intrinsic value. However, they do not assist businesses in substantially maximizing profit.

Barefooters who hold their weekly postrun meal with a huge party of people can assist a restaurant in substantially maximizing profit.
Barefooters who go to a business to make a significant purchase (kitchen redesign, entertainment system, car, new wardrobe) can assist a business in substantially maximizing profit.
Barefooters, who bring their barefoot sympathetic friends and family to make large purchases, can also assist a business in substantially maximizing profit.
Barefooters who hold an annual run, and are capable of promoting a business, might be able to convince a business to give a discount to barefooters, as this could help the business get more customers and substantially maximize profit.

Barefooters who have been turned away from a business can take their money elsewhere and educate the barefoot unfriendly business about the missed opportunity, by writing a letter and including a large receipt from the barefoot friendly business.

Businesses welcome people who can assist them in substantially maximizing profit and consider them to be valued customers. While unfair, business have learned to associate certain outward signs with ability to pay, such as Rolex and Louis Vuitton. While unfair, being barefoot is not traditionally associated with the ability to pay. However, businesses can be taught over time to associate being barefoot with the ability to pay. If barefooters assist businesses to substantially maximize profit, then barefooters will eventually be considered valued customers.

Money talks.

By the way, I’m looking for eggs high in omega 3, organic, and cage free. Can anyone help?

Ahcuah · Oct 19, 2014

Sid said:
Barefooters, wishing to be accommodated for disabilities, are not assisting business in substantially maximizing profit.
These activities may be very important and have intrinsic value. However, they do not assist businesses in substantially maximizing profit.

On the other hand, they can also scare the business into worrying about substantially losing profit due to lawsuits if they don't let them in because of the disability.

Sid said:
Barefooters who hold their weekly postrun meal with a huge party of people can assist a restaurant in substantially maximizing profit.

One year after the Johnny Appleseed festival in Fort Wayne, a large group of us tried to eat at a Japanese restaurant (Asakusa). After waiting quite a while for a table, the owner suddenly noticed we were all barefoot and didn't want to let us in. His wife, though, prevailed upon him, since we had waited so long. We had a very nice dinner there, behaved ourselves, and tipped nicely.

The next year we tried to eat there again, but the owner was having none of it. Our money just wasn't good enough for him. (Oddly enough, he really was Japanese, so we were surprised to find an American prejudice in action.)

There is a right to be barefoot

Barefooters

Chapter Presidents

Administrator

Barefooters

Barefooters

Chapter Presidents

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Barefooters

Support Your Club

Forum statistics

Share this page