McDonald's bans tracksuits

[Northstar]

Just wondering, how do you feel about 5-star restaurants(or any high class facility for that matter)?

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Just wondering, how do you feel about 5-star restaurants(or any high class facility for that matter)?

I don't personally use them as I'm not affluent enough but it's not quite the same thing. If I show up dressed how I am now (trying to look like a musician stereotype to get the girls) with enough money quite frankly, they would let me in. But if I were turned away it's not through some kind of social stigma, it's because of an agreed contract of service between the establishment and it's patrons that they will make the effort to show some class and the establishment will make them feel like they are in some where with some class.
As it is I know they look down their nose at me and that's fine, I'm not a young, impressionable person who is being stigmatized that I'm no good because I look like everyone else from my socioeconomic background, that just happens to include some people who genuinely are no good.

Anyhoo I think I became a "somebody is wrong on the internet!" cliche about 10 posts back so I'm gonna call time on my participation in the debate.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I don't know why drunk drivers that killed someone can't be beaten.

If it was my world, drunk drivers that killed someone is to be beaten by Mike Tyson.

 

[blaaah]

So they'll get rid of age discrimination as well, allowing older people to pay less life insurance, and younger people to pay more?


And this shows how naive your whole argument is. If they enforce "equality" then all they'll do is raise the female insurance and keep the male the same. So no one saves money, insurers simply make more.

What is my argument? How can it be naive, i'm just quoting laws to you.

So I can't ask a man disturbing customers to leave?
yes you can. Never mind that I disagree with that law personally (see the Rand Paul senatorial campaign issues from May in the Congress 2010 thread to see my stance on this), but the simple fact is that the group they associate with must be demographically based. Saying they associate with track suit wearers does not cut it. That is a choice of clothing, not a demographic group. It's not a choice if they say it is their belief that they need to wear those clothes, belief counts as a protected characteristic of law. Or it may be covered through indirect discrimination through the other characteristics perhaps age too.
Sure, anyone can file discrimination charges but how they actually play out in court is what matters. And that means the often media ignored appeals court ruling that overturns most of these frivolous lawsuits. Don't forget that when Oprah claimed racism was why a closed store wouldn't open just for her the rest of the world laughed at her. People can claim whatever bullcrap they want, but they have to prove it. The burden of proof is on them. No the law explicitly says they need no proof.

 

[Aldo]

Just consider this a precursor to the era in which I am boss of the world, whereupon I shall be banning the following:

• Tracksuits
• Anything velour
• Ugg Boots will be banned outright with death penalty on sight.
• Sandals and Crocs
• Male fake tans
• 'Ironic' lenseless nerd glasses. Fine for Michael Cera. Unholy for everyone who is not Michael Cera.
• ALL ED HARDY PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ALL FUTURE PRODUCTS.
• Maxi Dresses/Skirts/Blouses
• Jumpsuits and Ponchos
• Male T-Shirts that have some fake retro business name on. 'Chuck's Garage 55' doesn't make it acceptable.
• Cargo Pants
• Hawaiian shirts
• Chinos.
• Arc Leg Chinos will carrier a heavier penalty.
• Piping pants
• Anything beige
• Berets, Bobble hats, hunter caps and baseball caps.

]

I agree with all of this. Not the large bit at the bottom though. You don't own me... Yet.

 

[Northstar]

it's because of an agreed contract of service between the establishment and it's patrons

That is exactly what this whole thread is talking about.

Really if you think this is bad, you should see some of the things that go on in the US. We actually have gyms that men aren't allowed to join.

 

[F1 fan]

If you come from a certain background this is just how you dress. As a teen at that age it's how I dressed because it was socially important to be wearing brand name clothes so that every one didn't call you a 'stig' and it was just normal, I didn't know any different until I showed up to do music in college and found people initially resistant to speak with me because I was apparently a 'trendy'.

To be told we won't serve you because you look like trouble to an entire demographic of people because that's the visual marker most identified be the people forming the prejudice is wrong.

Not everyone. I'm from Glasgow. I am 23, am currently wearing a pair of jeans, a judas priest t-shirt, a leather jacket and a ferrari beany. I have long hair. I've dressed this way (minus the ferrari beany) since I was a kid. Always wearing band t-shirts or some sarcastic tshirt. Growing up in Glasgow was hellish due to being a constant target from these track suited neds (we call them neds, you call them chavs). As it happens, my friends and i have had frequent run ins and have been victims of unprovoked attacks, all from these people. One of my friends even had his face slashed pretty bad and is now scarred for life. Anyone who knows him will tell you he wouldn't hurt a fly. The majority of my friends have always got the better of these individuals. As have I.

The point is I (and the majority of my friends) have no criminal records at all. Just last year, another one of my friends was attacked by three neds at three in the morning in glasgow city centre. One of them swung a bottle at him, he managed to grab it off him and subsequently smashed it over his face. They all ran away after that.

So my question is, why dress like them and associate yourself with them? Let them wear their gang uniforms. I'm actually glad they do, because then you know who to keep a close eye on.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's not a choice if they say it is their belief that they need to wear those clothes, belief counts as a protected characteristic of law. Or it may be covered through indirect discrimination through the other characteristics perhaps age too.

Track suits are not part of any belief system that I know of. You can't just do or wear something that may be found offensive and declare religious rights and get away with it.

No the law explicitly says they need no proof.

As it is explicit I am sure you can quote it. I'm also not sure which country's law you are referring to, but it sounds like a dictatorial regime. Innocent until proven guilty is the law in the US.

Of course, you need no proof to accuse anyone of anything. I could right now file a civil suit against you for sexual assault. It would be thrown out and I would likely charged with a number of violations, but I can do it. But I was clearly pointing out that any claim of a legal nature must be proven out in court. Declaring discrimination against a business owner has to have proof or anyone can do it at any time and put people in jail. There must be a trial where the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove their accusations. They made the accusation, they brought about the court trial, they have to bring the proof forward. If they walked in and said, "My proof is that I say he did it," the judge would throw the case out and they will be lucky not to be held in contempt.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

That is exactly what this whole thread is talking about.

Really if you think this is bad, you should see some of the things that go on in the US. We actually have gyms that men aren't allowed to join.

Why would the women go if there aren't men there to hit on them?

Not everyone. I'm from Glasgow. I am 23, am currently wearing a pair of jeans, a judas priest t-shirt, a leather jacket and a ferrari beany. I have long hair. I've dressed this way (minus the ferrari beany) since I was a kid. Always wearing band t-shirts or some sarcastic tshirt. Growing up in Glasgow was hellish due to being a constant target from these track suited neds (we call them neds, you call them chavs). As it happens, my friends and i have had frequent run ins and have been victims of unprovoked attacks, all from these people. One of my friends even had his face slashed pretty bad and is now scarred for life. Anyone who knows him will tell you he wouldn't hurt a fly. The majority of my friends have always got the better of these individuals. As have I.

The point is I (and the majority of my friends) have no criminal records at all. Just last year, another one of my friends was attacked by three neds at three in the morning in glasgow city centre. One of them swung a bottle at him, he managed to grab it off him and subsequently smashed it over his face. They all ran away after that.

So my question is, why dress like them and associate yourself with them? Let them wear their gang uniforms. I'm actually glad they do, because then you know who to keep a close eye on.

I can sympathise with you mate. I did music at college and gradually found some dress sense. We would get "mosher!" yelled at us, I've been jumped a couple of times. I've been in confrontations at open air festivals with them trying to get on stage while I'm playing and throwing things at us, and the running theme of all the people who subjected us to this was the chav/ned look, but don't mistake cause for effect, there are plenty of people who dress like that who aren't such reprobates. You say they shouldn't dress like that because it makes them look like one of them and the two things I'd say on that is will you stop dressing how you do because it attracts the chav/ned attention to hassle you? And also the normal people are dressing like that to fit in with them so that they aren't hassled.

 

[Aldo]

The best thing I have heard from a ned was when I walked past a group of them, one of them said "That 🤬 has mosher boots on" talking about my skate shoes. I nearly died with laughter

But yeah, going on the title of the thread, I totally agree. Although the tracksuit wearing bams are about 80% of their custom

 

[F1 fan]

Well you make a good point BigYoSpeck , but I wouldn't stop dressing the way I do.

I love my leather jackets too much . My bikers jacket in particular, I call it my stab proof vest, on the account that it is very thick weighs a ton (for a jacket anyway) and makes me look much more buff than I am... And it gives me a good excuse to wear boots. Steel toe and heel.

I was really just trying to say I wouldn't associate myself with them by dressing that way. I dress the way I do because it's comfortable and fits a lot of situations.

Whether I'm gigging, going to gigs, going for a few beers (when I replace the boots with converse trainers) or just doing day to day stuff... The only time I dress any differently is for work or when I work out. And then I just wear shorts and tshirts.

Aldo, you've given me a great idea... "funniest encounter with neds".

Was going to the pub one night, so I was standing at the bus stop outside my house. Accross the road there was a building site where they were building new houses.

A ned I'd had run ins with before (although the other times he was part of a big group and was trying to establish himself as alpha ned) came wandering by on his own, saw me standing there and crossed the street. He started shouting things like mosher, I made a comment about him wandering about the streets in his pyjamas (as this particular tracksuit did look like the kind of pj's I used to wear as a kid). He stopped at the building site and said

NED "That's it... If i find a brick you're getting it"
ME " if you find a brick? Have you got a brick?"
NED "no but when I do, you're getting it"

Before the conversation went any further, I started running at him, he saw me coming and started running away. He didn't even look back to see me standing laughing at him.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are you all really worried about some larger problem at the root of this? Reading this recent talk of Moshers and Neds/Chavs I just figured it. It is just the Greasers vs Socs all over again. 50 years later and our youth is still obsessed with prejudicial hatred based primarily on their own self image.

When I was younger I sat at home playing video games in jeans and a t-shirt. I never got into fights. In college I was too busy just hanging out with friends and meeting girls to worry about being part of some trendy group.


I'm waiting to hear about the goths and vampires getting into it next.


But the issue isn't with McDonald's, the police, or any of that. It is with these self-absorbed dolts that think their clothing and the clothing of others is some kind of status symbol. Businesses and officials wouldn't be singling these people out if they hadn't already done it to themselves.

 

[Moglet]

Businesses and officials wouldn't be singling these people out if they hadn't already done it to themselves.

This is spot on. They can't complain about being singled out when that's what they wanted anyway. I'd like to say that just because they're wearing tracksuits they're not threatening but as we've discovered recently, most of them are carrying a blade at the very least these days.

One tracksuit wearing clot in my hometown came over looking for trouble down my road in a stab proof vest. He got stabbed in the neck (I wouldn't normally laugh but he attacked someone almost leaving them dead, the kids dad found out and took to him with a huge knife. Karma's a bitch)

 

[spiker]

Tracksuit discrimination? Neck stabbings? This is fantastic.

 

[ASH32]

Where does the article say the police aren't doing anything on their own? Where does it say they are? Claiming the police are avoiding their jobs is making a presumption.

I do find it interesting that this situation has brought up the subject of prejudice, and then people are making assumptions about how the police are acting. Pre-judging them in fact.

I never said they weren't, I said it sounds like there aren't, I could be wrong and I hope I am. It's just that I see so much crime being committed every day, some more serious than others, that the Police must know about, yet they never seem to do much about most of it. Of course this is probably because the Police are serverly understaffed and as Famine already said the CPS aren't much use. I just feel this action, although perfectly understandable, will probably bring more harm than good, I hope I am wrong.

 

[FoolKiller]

I never said they weren't, I said it sounds like there aren't, I could be wrong and I hope I am. It's just that I see so much crime being committed every day, some more serious than others, that the Police must know about, yet they never seem to do much about most of it.

It is because police presence, by its very nature, is reactionary. It is a reaction after the crime has occurred. While patrols and so forth can help to prevent crime, unless a police officer can witness a crime they don't know it occurred until after it is over and someone calls them. Police cannot be everywhere all the time.

Belief that the police can protect you from crime is one of the great fallacies of government.

 

[Joel]

This is ridiculous.


If you go to a 5 star restaurant and get turned away because you're wearing jeans, is it discrimination? No. So quit whining and take the damn tracksuit off to go to McDonalds.

 

[ASH32]

This is ridiculous.


If you go to a 5 star restaurant and get turned away because you're wearing jeans, is it discrimination? No. So quit whining and take the damn tracksuit off to go to McDonalds.

Yes it is discrimination, but discrimination exists in society and it has too to some extent, the sooner people accept this the better.

I do wonder what will happen if these tracksuit wearing yobs turn up wearing suits, or any other type of clothes, would that type of clothes then be banned aswell, you can't just go around banning everything although it seems society wants to try.

 

[blaaah]

...

Track suits are not part of any belief system that I know of. You can't just do or wear something that may be found offensive and declare religious rights and get away with it. The belief characteristic is separate from religion, but as i said before 10,000 of a group can be a legitimate religion, if it is less you can just say it is your belief. Both are protected by law.


As it is explicit I am sure you can quote it. I'm also not sure which country's law you are referring to, but it sounds like a dictatorial regime. Innocent until proven guilty is the law in the US. I quoted it already but didn't use quote marks, The country is the UK and the whole of Europe and all it's member countries of the Union.


Of course, you need no proof to accuse anyone of anything. I have already quoted the law, you don't need proof, the law was changed for just that purpose... I could right now file a civil suit against you for sexual assault. You have not read my posts, i have explained the laws, it relates to discrimination, nothing to do with assault, and is in application to business offering a service to the public. It would be thrown out and I would likely charged with a number of violations, but I can do it. But I was clearly pointing out that any claim of a legal nature must be proven out in court. Declaring discrimination against a business owner has to have proof or anyone can do it at any time and put people in jail. There must be a trial where the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove their accusations. They made the accusation, they brought about the court trial, they have to bring the proof forward. If they walked in and said, "My proof is that I say he did it," the judge would throw the case out and they will be lucky not to be held in contempt. No, no proof is needed it's the law...

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=9368

 

[Keef]

This is ridiculous.


If you go to a 5 star restaurant and get turned away because you're wearing jeans, is it discrimination? No. So quit whining and take the damn tracksuit off to go to McDonalds.

Yes it is actually. But that's okay because it is the restaurant owner's choice. Sadly, only some things are his choice because of all these ridiculous laws on racial discrimination and whatnot. They should not be laws. There's been discussion of this matter in a thread around here somewhere. Anybody recall which one it was?

 

[blaaah]

This is ridiculous.


If you go to a 5 star restaurant and get turned away because you're wearing jeans, is it discrimination? No. So quit whining and take the damn tracksuit off to go to McDonalds.

It is not illegal discrimination to have a dress code, until the situation occurs where it is in conflict with a religion or belief. If you as an individual were wearing jeans and wanted to enter the 5 star restaurant even though the signs and staff say no jeans, you can ( if it is the truth) say that your personal philosophical belief is that I must wear Jeans (ie. you can't choose to be flexible in this matter as it would be against my philosophy), after explaining this to the staff so that they understand your complaint if they still insist you can not enter then they have committed a crime which you can take to court. For it to be a valid case then the facts of your philosophical beliefs must be made clear and that you gave the business the chance to remedy it and to inform that they did not address the situation satisfactorily which you believe is discrimination, they then need to prove they did not discriminate.
The only exemption i have read so far is for clothing which is forbidden for health and safety reasons, I don't think jeans could be seen any more of a hazard compared to other trousers.
I would think although no proof is required by the claimant, they would require considerable explanation of why wearing jeans is so absolutely essential to them. Which is why it would be much simpler if jeans lovers organised them selves an established religion with published ethos.
If that happened then the whole hotel/club/posh type places would have to remove all signs relating to jean wearing and to not have it excluded from any dress codes as it would be in violation of an already know religion.
That's my take on it.

 

[Tornado]

It is not illegal discrimination to have a dress code, until the situation occurs where it is in conflict with a religion or belief. If you as an individual were wearing jeans and wanted to enter the 5 star restaurant even though the signs and staff say no jeans, you can ( if it is the truth) say that your personal philosophical belief is that I must wear Jeans (ie. you can't choose to be flexible in this matter as it would be against my philosophy), after explaining this to the staff so that they understand your complaint if they still insist you can not enter then they have committed a crime which you can take to court. For it to be a valid case then the facts of your philosophical beliefs must be made clear and that you gave the business the chance to remedy it and to inform that they did not address the situation satisfactorily which you believe is discrimination, they then need to prove they did not discriminate.

I am literally shocked that EU laws have mandated that all businesses are guilty until proven innocent in regards to discrimination, particularly if it actually allows the law to be as blatantly manipulated as it is in your example (using methodology that essentially amounts to extortion, no less).

I also legitimately feel sorry for any business that chooses to operate in EU countries if the only thing you have to do to basically ignore following policies established on private property is shout "discrimination" and watch as the business rushes to try to prove you wrong in court (which, I think bears repeating, is an absolutely ridiculous thing to require in a civil suit in the first place).

 

[blaaah]

It would not be a manipulation or extortion in my example because i said if it was a truthful and honest claim based on philosophical belief, if someone lied about that then they could be in big trouble, just like falsely claiming rape.

Perhaps you miss the point that the business should just let the person be served and not have a policy that can discriminate in the first place (even if it is for a dress code). If they cant do that they should not be in a business that provides a service to the public.
Businesses are not allowed to pick and choose who they serve. Why should they, why is it in the public interest for them to be selective. It is not justifiable. And if they serve the public they have chosen to put themselves under public scrutiny they cant do as they please.


Requiring people entering a shop to wear shoes for example is legitimate if it relates to hygiene or health and safety. A business maybe ( highly unlikely) taken to court on discrimination because of some person that declares he must not wear footwear, if it did get as far as being heard at all then the business would win as a judge would determine the requirement was practical and necessary. But it probably would not go to court if any advice was given to the claimant.
If a business creates selective requirements not based on obvious necessities then they are completely liable to be sued, such as saying no tracksuits for the under 18's. Which infact could fall under the dual discrimination laws, so McDonalds could receive a double punishment.

 

[niky]

Am I too late? No?

Let's just see them try to keep her out.

 

[Joel]

Yes it is actually. But that's okay because it is the restaurant owner's choice. Sadly, only some things are his choice because of all these ridiculous laws on racial discrimination and whatnot. They should not be laws. There's been discussion of this matter in a thread around here somewhere. Anybody recall which one it was?

Yeah as soon as I made that post I meant to edit it, but I had to go to driver's ed.

It's definitely discrimination, but it's ok. I "discriminate" who I allow in my house, I only let people that are my friends or who I trust in, so I guess I'm discriminating too. (Oh, and no tracksuits.)

 

[Tornado]

It would not be a manipulation or extortion in my example because i said if it was a truthful and honest claim based on philosophical belief, if someone lied about that then they could be in big trouble, just like falsely claiming rape.

You also went through great pains to show how easy it was to get something classed as a religion in the U.K. You specifically alluded to how these people could try to start a track suit belief system (or something equally idiotic) purely under the pretext of forcing a business to serve them. That is the definition of manipulating the system.
"Let us in, or we will start a religion about the stuff you don't like and force you to let us in." And the "you have to prove that you didn't do what I'm saying you did" system for deciding these cases falls just short of encouraging such actions.

Perhaps you miss the point that the business should just let the person be served and not have a policy that can discriminate in the first place (even if it is for a dress code). If they cant do that they should not be in a business that provides a service to the public.

Why exactly do you think that the public has the right to demand goods and services from a business? That is the opposite of how it actually works.

Why should they, why is it in the public interest for them to be selective.

Because the place of business is private property. It doesn't matter what the public interest is, because it isn't a public establishment.

Do you let everyone who knocks on your door in your home? Because that is exactly what you are saying this McDonalds should be doing.

And if they serve the public they have chosen to put themselves under public scrutiny they cant do as they please.

So if the public doesn't like what a private establishment is doing when they have every right to do it, they can change the laws and make it so the private establishment no longer has that right. Or, as it is more commonly known, mob rule.

If a business creates selective requirements not based on obvious necessities then they are completely liable to be sued, such as saying no tracksuits for the under 18's. Which infact could fall under the dual discrimination laws, so McDonalds could receive a double punishment.

The people that this policy was put in place to try to dissuade from entering were threatening physical violence, and possibly even murder, towards the employees of the establishment. That sounds like a pretty damn obvious necessity to me.

And "obvious necessities" is an incredibly vague idea to classify something like this over. And obvious necessity for an upper class restaurant may very well be that patrons conform to a strict dress code, for example.

 

[blaaah]

You also went through great pains to show how easy it was to get something classed as a religion in the U.K. You specifically alluded to how these people could try to start a track suit belief system (or something equally idiotic) purely under the pretext of forcing a business to serve them. That is the definition of manipulating the system.
"Let us in, or we will start a religion about the stuff you don't like and force you to let us in." And the "you have to prove that you didn't do what I'm saying you did" system for deciding these cases falls just short of encouraging such actions.
If 10,000 people were of the same mind, whether if it was for a joke or not the religion must be taken seriously as it becomes relevant to the law. If you are truthfully part of that religion, and it really does have strict clothing rules, then it is a legitimate religion, even if it exists to annoy "no jeans" restaurants. Because it is in the public interest (ie 10,000 people). That opinion is just "a" view though and I can see the other side also and support it. But irrespective of a viewpoint I gave that is the law, a judge would decide whether it was malicious or not.




Why exactly do you think that the public has the right to demand goods and services from a business? That is the opposite of how it actually works.
I'm saying that a private business cant refuse service in a discriminatory way covered by the existing laws, maybe I didn't phrase it better before. They can refuse service because they can't be bothered maybe or feel tired, but they can't have a policy or give a reason that is discriminatory. I'm making a point that a rule for no jeans/tracksuits could make them liable under the reasons I have given.



Because the place of business if private property. It doesn't matter what the public interest is, because it isn't a public establishment.
The law covers private property that offers a service to the public. I have already given the example, the English couple were prosecuted for being discriminatory, they were only running their business from their private home. But they were offering a public service (accommodation).

Do you let everyone who knocks on your door in your home? Because that is exactly what you are saying this McDonalds should be doing.
My home is not offering a service to the public, McDonalds can shut their door to anyone they like along as it's not discriminatory.



So if the public doesn't like what a private establishment is doing when they have every right to do it they don't have every right in reference to discrimination, they can change the laws and make it so the private establishment no longer has that right. Or, as it is more commonly known, mob rule.
Perhaps it is mob rule, that's what a lot of real-world democracy is isn't it?


The people that this policy was put in place to try to dissuade from entering were threatening physical violence, and possibly even murder, towards the employees of the establishment. That sounds like a pretty damn obvious necessity to me. The rule they have is possibly discriminatory. An issue of threats can be investigated by the police, security can be increased, what they can't do is be discriminatory as that's illegal.

And "obvious necessities" is an incredibly vague idea to classify something like this over. And obvious necessity for an upper class restaurant may very well be that patrons conform to a strict dress code, for example.
The words "obvious necessities" were my words/terms and can be vague, I was just trying to say that to cover any exception. A rule for footwear is applicable to everyone because of hygiene/safety, a rule for no tracksuits because of threats of violence by some people who might wear tracksuits is not necessary because wearing a tracksuit is not violent or threatening, it discriminates with no all encompassing just reason.

...
With this discussion I am mostly philosophising ,which maybe in contrast to your views as you may run your own business and it might be closer to home from your viewpoint. If i give ridiculous views it might just be for the sake of debate to look at possibilities and to find answers.

 

[Tornado]

Please don't respond to my posts like that.

 

[blaaah]

Please don't respond to my posts like that. Why?

I'm not sure how to break up one quote into many divisions.

 

[Tornado]

Because it is very hard for me to read, and I have to jump through tons of hoops to reply to it.


To break up a post to reply to pieces of it, copy the quote tags at the beginning and end and paste them around the section you are responding to, like this:

[quote="blaaah, post: 4699516"]And if they serve the public they have chosen to put themselves under public scrutiny they cant do as they please.[/QUOTE]

[quote="blaaah, post: 4699516"]If a business creates selective requirements not based on obvious necessities then they are completely liable to be sued, such as saying no tracksuits for the under 18's. Which infact could fall under the dual discrimination laws, so McDonalds could receive a double punishment.[/QUOTE]