Here Comes The Sun

From Shafts Of Sun:

reading your post, I kind of see where you're coming from, i just don't agree with it. basically, you're saying that the freedom of private business establishments to come up with their own rules within the confines of their own property as long as they don't violate the law (choosing who to let in) is more important than each person's individual liberty (how one wants to dress up). the problem with these two concepts is that basically they're both important, and should be respected up to a certain point. Re: cross-dressers and people wearing sandos not being allowed to go in certain establishments; the question becomes, do they cross the threshold where the importance of freedom of private establishments crosses over and infringes upon another person's liberty to express oneself? I would say yes, and, though not unlawful, at the very least enforces the idea that these people who choose to express themselves in this way cannot be trusted to behave themselves.

Re: the example of people not being allowed in city hall because they wear sandos; well, the whole thing is just, honest to God, unconstitutional. Last time I checked, this wasn't China. I'm actually surprised no one has brought it to court yet. The government has no power to discriminate against people especially on the basis of how they choose to dress themselves, and especially if the people who are going to be affected the most are those who need government help the most. Check Article III (Bill of Rights), XI (Accountability of Public Officers), and XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) of the Constitution.

* * * * *

Thank you, Shafts Of Sun a.k.a. Polite Megalomaniac for your comments. You’ve made some very good points.

Let me just clarify something first. You stated: “you're saying that the freedom of private business establishments to come up with their own rules within the confines of their own property as long as they don't violate the law (choosing who to let in) is more important than each person's individual liberty (how one wants to dress up).”

I’m sorry but I never said that the freedom of establishments is “more important” than a persons individual liberty. Pardon me if I gave you that impression. I was just stating the sad reality that establishments justify their house rules as their means of protecting their business from “undesirable” customers. That’s why I asked the question “Why do certain establishments insist on a dress code in the first place?” twice. I wanted to thresh out the thinking behind dress codes and house rules.

I really like how you explained the delicate balance between the rights of the establishment versus the rights of individuals. In fact, the following statement of yours is pretty telling: “(it) enforces the idea that these people who choose to express themselves in this way cannot be trusted to behave themselves.”

The fear that flamboyantly cross-dressers as well as tattooed, leather-clad folks will behave embarrassingly is, I’d like to think, a fear born out of: [1] past bad experience/s; [2] passed-on or acquired bias; [3] the uncertainty of the unknown. Because there is no fool-proof way of screening queens who’ll behave appropriately versus queens who’ll behave badly (let’s not forget that what constitutes “bad” behavior is also subjective), is an establishment justified to impose a dress code/house rules as a preventive measure? Wow, talk about a preemptive strike.

Also, here a reality we have to consider: between a person exercising his freedom (wearing what he likes) versus an establishment exercising its house rules (including dress code), what often happens is that the person is the one ejected from the establishment. There are establishment that lend a dinner coat or jacket to customers who aren’t in the proper attire. How come the establishments get their way in most cases?

Re. the Marikina City Hall, I really don’t know why no one has questioned that rule yet. Maybe even the poorest of the poor in Marikina have at least one plain t-shirt? (I’m tempted to joke about them having shoes, but that’s just way too obvious.) Maybe the guards at the gate ask the people very gently and politely? Maybe the government—and the people—of Marikina doesn’t see it as discrimination, but teaching the people to be presentable? Maybe the rule isn’t as iron-clad as it sounds; maybe they do allow exceptions to the rule? I really don’t know.

I’ve never actually set foot in the City Hall, but my mom has and she was the one who told me about the rule. At first I was taken aback; isn’t that discrimination? But my mom told me how clean and orderly and behaved and—most importantly—disciplined the people were inside City Hall. (Or at least, that’s what it looks like on the surface; neither she nor I can attest that no under-the-table stuff happens inside.) Queues were orderly and properly observed; service was efficient, if a tad slow (not surprising). No one asked her for grease money to facilitate processing whenever she pays our real estate tax annually.

The cynic in me doesn’t believe that all is right in the Marikina City Hall. But I cannot deny that many Marikina residents attest to an improved City Hall; nay, to an improved city. They say there’s no arguing success; maybe that’s why no one has questioned the dress code. Yet.