Is Requiring Patrons To Dress Appropriately Racist?

by Patricia L. Dickson   7/10/14

It appears that even dress codes are racist. A Bar Louie in Minneapolis has implemented a dress code for its establishment. Some of the locals are suggesting that the dress code is racist and is an attempt to keep black people out of the establishment. One young woman interviewed on camera even compared it to Jim Crow. Why such hyperbole over a simple dress code? The restricted clothing are listed on sign in the window of the establishment that includes:

  • No Flat-Billed Hats
  • No Sleeveless Under Shirts
  • No Excessively Baggy Clothing
  • No Large Chains Worn Outside Of Shirt
  • No Long Plain White T-Shirts
  • No Athletic Apparel
  • No Sports Jerseys Unless Collared

To allege that the establishment is using the dress code as a means to keep black people from patronizing the bar is to suggest that only black people wear that type of clothing. It also suggests that black people do not have any other clothing except the type of clothing that is listed. What the individuals throwing out these claims of racist intent fail to realize is that nowhere on the sign does it say that individuals (regardless of race) who abide by the established dress code will not be allowed to enter.

What is wrong with an owner of an establishment trying to protect his or her investment from possible thug activities such as fights and shooting? There was a time not long ago that an individual would not even think about wearing such clothing into a place of entertainment. People used to put on their best attire for a night out on the town. It appears that some individuals are looking for racism under every rock.

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1454 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is Requiring Patrons To Dress Appropriately Racist?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I wonder how the owner would even know that underwear someone is wearing. Nor am I certain what all those items would be — is there any billed cap that isn’t flat-billed? But given how many clothing items can be gang signatures, it’s certainly quite reasonable for an owner to make such restrictions (and even if it weren’t, that’s his business, not ours — literally). I don’t know if I’d qualify — but we never go to bars (neither Elizabeth nor I drinks alcoholic beverages of any sort), and the only time I’ve ever been in the Minneapolis area was passing through on the interstate going to and from Winnipeg for the World SF convention in 1994.

  2. LibertyMark says:

    The beauty of the racist charge is that those who use it live by the credo, “race card for me, but not for thee”.

    I would have added, No prison sleeve tats.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Maybe they don’t have a problem with those up in Minnesota. As for the liberal hypocrites, the best way to answer them is to attack them using their own methods. Since they prefer to keep their blatant hypocrisy hidden, this would be difficult for them to deal with. Of course, it doesn’t matter much as long as the synoptic media can safely ignore such incidents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *