[ACCEPTED; #1238] - No Shoes, No Service

[Sacara]

[Name] No Shoes, No Service
[Desc] The rise of the Barefoot Wanderers, a newly formed religion, has led to an increasing number of people going about their daily lives without shoes or socks on. @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@, famous movie star and new convert to the religion, recently made national headlines after @@HE@@ was forcibly removed from an uptown restaurant for @@HIS(1)@@ lack of footwear.
[Validity] allows religion, does not have theocracy, does not have prudism

[option] "This is discrimination in its dirtiest form, just like in my upcoming movie, Faith Laid Bare," raves @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@, pointedly resting @@HIS(1)@@ dirt-caked feet on your desk. "It says in our most sacred texts that covering toes is giving service to the Sock-Devil. Being forced to wear such abominations is oppressing religious freedom! Besides, look at these toes, just look at them. Ain't they beautiful?" @@HE(1)@@ wiggles them under your nose.
[effect] posh restaurants scatter glass fragments on the dining room floor to keep out barefoot undesirables

[option] "Do you really want to dine in an establishment that allows smelly, uncovered feet inside?" counters the manager of the restaurant in question, who is clearly repulsed by the shoeless @@MAN(1)@@ standing next to @@HIM(2)@@. "We have a sign that clearly states our 'No Shoes, No Service' policy, and that is for the enjoyment of our people that we serve. I think businesses should be able to enjoy the right to put restrictions on clothing, however ludicrous those may seem."
[effect] signs saying "No Poor People or Weirdoes" are common outside shops and cafés

[option] "Bl-euch! These foot-worshippers and toe-fetishists make me sick!" gags your Minister of Standards, adjusting his pink-and-green three-piece suit and yellow suede brogues. "I say that allowing people to dress so sloppily is ruining the very fabric of @@NAME@@! You must demand that everyone should wear smart shoes at all times when in public. It's about professionalism and decency, don't you know?"
[effect] shaking a stone out of your shoe is considered to be dangerously risqué

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Solidly written. Feels a bit "small" at present. Not that we haven't done small before, but maybe you could try to find a way to make the narrative feel to be of national importance.

[Australian rePublic]

I feep as if you mention whether or not this restirant was located on a beach. I feel as if that would make a difference

[Trotterdam]

I feep as if you mention whether or not this restirant was located on a beach. I feel as if that would make a difference

I assume that most people aren't only religiously observant at the beach.

Maybe if you worship a god of the sea?

[Sacara]

Solidly written. Feels a bit "small" at present. Not that we haven't done small before, but maybe you could try to find a way to make the narrative feel to be of national importance.

Hmm... Maybe make it about the religion in general? I kind of like the current narrative, though.

[Australian rePublic]

I feep as if you mention whether or not this restirant was located on a beach. I feel as if that would make a difference

I assume that most people aren't only religiously observant at the beach.

Maybe if you worship a god of the sea?

Not necassirly. Some people (irrespective of their faith, or lack thereof) tend to vist beaches without shoes, so resturants there might be more leniant

[Trotterdam]

Not necassirly. Some people (irrespective of their faith, or lack thereof) tend to vist beaches without shoes, so resturants there might be more leniant

I know. How is this relevant?

[Verdant Haven]

Option 2 feels like it goes a little sideways, to me. It starts out strong, but the leap to "nobody anywhere can be outside without shoes" seems like an extra hop, in my opinion, and is just as "out there" as option 3's banning of shoes all together.

I would suggest as a possibility maintaining the first part of option 2, about having a sign that is clear, and the reason for it. I would take the second half more in to an argument of "this is a private business, we should have the right to determine who we do or don't serve." That would be very a propos issues that have been ongoing in the news with things like a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, and I think it would fit in a good niche as far as stats and such. It would also serve as solid counterpoint to the first option, which carries with it the implication of businesses not having any rights in this regard.

[Sacara]

Option 2 feels like it goes a little sideways, to me. It starts out strong, but the leap to "nobody anywhere can be outside without shoes" seems like an extra hop, in my opinion, and is just as "out there" as option 3's banning of shoes all together.

Hm... I kind of liked option two as it is, but I'm willing to hear more on whether it's too extreme from others as well.

[Jutsa]

another validity I just thought of: "Must not have compulsory nudism".

edit: for that matter, "must not have prudism" too

[Sacara]

another validity I just thought of: "Must not have compulsory nudism".

edit: for that matter, "must not have prudism" too

I thought of compulsory nudism, but I did a quick search and found this:

And, to repeat a tired point, fashion is not restricted to clothing. It also covers hair, make-up, jewelry, piercings, body art, handbags, shoes (banning clothing does not mean banning shoes -- especially in a rocky or urbanized area).

[Chan Island]

another validity I just thought of: "Must not have compulsory nudism".

edit: for that matter, "must not have prudism" too

I thought of compulsory nudism, but I did a quick search and found this:

And, to repeat a tired point, fashion is not restricted to clothing. It also covers hair, make-up, jewelry, piercings, body art, handbags, shoes (banning clothing does not mean banning shoes -- especially in a rocky or urbanized area).

That's an issue all for it's own.

[Jutsa]

Yeah thinking about it prudism's probably not a problem either >_>

[Sacara]

Still looking for opinion: should I remove the part that mandates that shoes are worn everywhere or not? Verdant has stated that he doesn't like it already, just looking for more feedback on it.

[Jutsa]

I like the idea, but more as a potential final option than a reasonable second option.

Option 2 might be better as a "we should be able to put up any clothing restrictions we want, such as dressing formally", etc.
idk but still, I think that'd be better. Just removing the "make people wear shoes" and not doing that would make it a bit of a dismiss button.

[Sacara]

Major update to the draft:

- Reworked the description to make it 'bigger'.
- Removed the ending of the option and made it solely about business rights.
- Made a new option between the old two and three, which prohibits being barefoot and enacts prudism.

Let me know what you guys think about the new draft!

[Hediacrana]

I'm trying to think of a funnier effect line for option 3. Maybe something along the lines of "public nudity is legal as long as people say it's for 'religious reasons'? Yeah, it needs work.

[Bears Armed]

I'm trying to think of a funnier effect line for option 3. Maybe something along the lines of "public nudity is legal as long as people say it's for 'religious reasons'? Yeah, it needs work.

We've already got an issue whose effect lines include one with people being seen "only in leopard-skin g-strings" for religious reasons...

[New Ladavia]

Just some commentary on the effect line for option 2: businesses arbitrarily kick out noisy customers for not wearing the clothing. In this instance what would be "the clothing" Mabey a solution to this would be: businesses arbitrarily kick out noisy customers in three-piece suits. however then this would affect the wording in option three so at the end of the day, it's your choice.

[Sacara]

Did a little adjusting here and there.

Besides a few effect lines, I'm feeling decently good about this one. I'll keep it up for a few more days then submit, but in the meantime, I would love to hear suggestions about the effect lines.

[New Ladavia]

[effect] religious figures cry discrimination every time they are questioned

the leader of @@FAITH@@ has diplomatic immunity

[effect] businesses arbitrarily kick out noisy customers for not wearing proper clothing

not even @@LEADER@@ can escape the wrath of the chef in a restaurant the slums of @@CAPITAL@@/Only Fashion models can eat outside of soup kitchens

Option three is good

[Sacara]

Sorry I've been inactive lately -- I've been really busy, but things should start cooling down next week.

As for now, I plan on putting this on last call, but I'll leave it up for a bit. I'll also post a few drafts in the upcoming days.

[Victorious Decepticons]

[option] "You know, this whole thing has got me to think why we even wear shoes in the first place," contemplates your most woke advisor, while staring off into a wall. "I mean, I can never find the right size of shoe to fight, and it's getting really annoying. We need to just outright ban the sale and wearing of shoes. This planet was made to be walked upon by our feet, not some ugly rubber soles."
[effect] the stench of unwashed feet fill the streets of @@CAPITAL@@

I'm sure the bolded should be "fit," considering that people don't go looking for shoes "to fight."

[Baggieland]

I'm sure the bolded should be "fit," considering that people don't go looking for shoes "to fight."

Change this, then it looks submittable to me.

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck!