One amusingly hot topic on social media these days has been the issue of a fancy restaurant’s dress code, which in today’s hyper-casual world where everything has become flexible, from the rules that used to govern society and its norms, all the way to the choice of gender, must have become a bit of a foreign concept applicable only to formal occasions and the most sacred Christmas party themes.
It’s not fully certain how the dress code became an issue, but from what I remember, it became a conversation piece when the restaurant first opened at a repurposed mansion, apparently because the policy initially wasn’t very clear. Based on the banter at the lola’s table at our regular Sunday lunch, where we have been having great potluck food at a rotating set of ancestral homes since my childhood, all without the need for a dress code, the resto apparently laid down a blanket ban on sleeveless tops and/or open toed footwear, which was a bit absurd considering that was during the peak of summer, when most ladies have a sleeveless outfit with matching sandals for almost any occasion.
Anyway, I’m guessing that after some confusion and frustrated guests, the ambiguity in their house rules was eventually ironed out, and according to their website, the dress code is currently defined as “smart casual” where no flip-flops, slippers, slide-ons are allowed for all guests, and for men, no sleeveless clothing, basketball shorts, or open toed sandals.
That is their dress code and however it is implemented is up to the management of the restaurant that chose to have one. The final arbiter of the rule is the person manning the door, so anyone who goes to the establishment dressed in anything that violates or falls into the gray area of their rules will be subject to the possibility of being denied entry and service.
A dress code is not an ideal situation for those who are used to having their way, and somehow believe that “the customer is always right,” but that is the establishment’s business. It’s literally their house, their rules. If they don’t want your business because your toes are showing, then don’t give them your money. But if you really want to spend some cash on them, or want to have your photos taken Fordagram, then simply read the rules and come back when appropriately dressed.
Those who don’t like establishments that have rules have the choice to avoid those places, permanently, if they so wish. It should be as simple as that.
However, there are some people who just cannot seem to fathom the concept of rules and regulations. They feel personally offended or discriminated against when subjected to rules, triggering a main character syndrome that makes them feel like they are specifically targeted. Some are just rabble rousing, rage baiting clout chasers who like to stir up controversy by challenging any rules they encounter, pick arguments against staff that are just following the rulebook, usually with the intent to post videos on social media that try to get engagement or go viral.
The most common complaint against rules such as dress codes that deny entry to those that are not sartorially compliant is that it is discriminatory. But if you come to think of it, discrimination is the entire point of the rule. If an establishment wants to maintain its image as “high end” by preventing the sight of its customers’ toenails and the bare shoulders of male patrons as much as possible, that is their prerogative to be discriminating in any manner they see fit for their business.
As a customer faced with a written rule, it is your choice to either comply to gain entry or to choose another establishment that is friendlier towards exposed toenails. Of course, those who feel especially attacked by the rule also have the option to complain, post a video bashing their policy, or call for a boycott, if that is the cause they choose to fight for.
In a world without social media, it should be a straightforward issue. Customers that want to gain entry just have to comply with the dress code. Those who don’t like their rule or think it is too much effort can simply choose not to patronize the business.
However, in an era where everyone feels like they can go viral if they hit the right nerve or ingrown toenail, there seem to be just too many easily offended noisy complainers who can just keep on shouting into their handy megaphone in the hope that they can make enough noise to pressure the discriminating establishment to change its rules to favor their cause, whatever that may be.
It would be interesting to see who is winning this particular battle: the supposedly discriminating establishment, or the supposedly poor victims of such discrimination.*
