dress code

[David in FL]

3 hours ago, Zekez said:

Rather bizarre to not play a sport that you love because of the way one is forced to dress.

Ya think?

Apparently the "love" doesn't run all that deep.

I guess there's always tennis...

...oh wait.  

[mcanadiens]

18 hours ago, rehmwa said:

Is it something recent where, when stating a rule, that now people have to make a little intro speech?  This has no value added vs just starting at "proper attire must be worn......"

Not sure if its a recent thing, but it's definitely a Centerville thing. I breathe easier knowing those guys are protecting my rights and privileges.  

Edited June 7, 2017 by mcanadiens

[David in FL]

18 hours ago, rehmwa said:

 

Is it something recent where, when stating a rule, that now people have to make a little intro speech?  This has no value added vs just starting at "proper attire must be worn......"

 

I'm harkening to the gender neutral restroom signs that have more 'speech' on them than actual identification text.  blowhards

Yeah.  If you're going to have a rule, stand by it proudly.  No need for apology or additional lame attempts at justification.  Stand on the courage of your convictions!

[MRR]

19 hours ago, rehmwa said:

Is it something recent where, when stating a rule, that now people have to make a little intro speech?  This has no value added vs just starting at "proper attire must be worn......"

I've seen that a lot when laypersons try to write rules.  They feel that giving an explanation for how the authority exists and why the rule is being implemented somehow makes a possibly divisive decision more palatable or enforceable.

Not only is no value added, but value is taken away.  Ridiculous introductions provide new areas to attack.  "Shirts must have collars" means just that.  "In order to protect rights and privileges" now means that I should have the right to wear what I want because I'm privileged.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Yeah.  If you're going to have a rule, stand by it proudly.  No need for apology or additional lame attempts at justification.  Stand on the courage of your convictions!

Here's my justification for the rules - "My Shop, My Rules.  Deal with it."

I am perfectly capable of identifying and protecting my own rights and privileges.  Where that is challenged, the government is tasked to help me out.  I don't need some clubhouse trying to do it.

 

Philosophically, rules and laws are only able to restrict freedoms.  Any rule that pretends to 'allow' or give something is poorly crafted or the writer doesn't understand the concept of rights.  So, in what way is someone protecting my rights or other's rights by requiring a restriction?  it's silly.

Restriction - Collared shirts are required (because we say so).

no issue with that. mealy mouthing around it?  don't be apologetic because you have standards and the authority to required it on your own property.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by rehmwa

[ghalfaire]

20 hours ago, David in FL said:

First, a LOT, probably most "public" courses are still privately owned, but are open to anyone who wants to play there.  

Second, assuming you're talking exclusively about the relatively few publicly owned courses, those that are actually owned and operated by a local municipality, I see no difference between a golf course, or any other facility that the town/city/county might operate.  They set standards of conduct and often dress at courthouses, town halls, parks, swimming pools, whatever.  Just because someone may indirectly contribute a miniscule amount of the annual operating budget to a facility through whatever taxes they may or may not pay, doesn't mean they have any more "ownership" to that course or facility than they would to any "privately owned" course.  This whole, "I pay taxes, so no one should be able to tell me that I can't do whatever the hell I want" just isn't the way it works in the real world.  Nor should it be. 

As always, if you or I want to frequent any establishment, we simply abide by their rules.  If we don't like their rules, we go somewhere that better meets our needs.  

No.  The municipality is the owner.  The individual taxpayers are not.  That's why you last paragraph is relevant to this case too.  

Both are fair points and I was not very precise with my language.  Clearly privately owned courses, whether open to the public or not, can set whatever dress code the owners feel appropriate.  Government owned courses are managed by someone, a government employee or in some cases a management group under contract.  I would think that these managers have the options of setting dress code (as long as their boss agrees).  From my experiences these government owned courses set a very more liberal dress code that most privately owned public golf courses.

As to how codes are set is sometimes for clarity and to eliminate judgement.  I would agree there are some very nice shirts that don't have collars, at least as we tend to think of collars.  But if you allow shirts with no collar then someone has to define what no collar shirt is acceptable and what isn't.  A difficult definition to develop and not end up in endless arguments with customers.  Much easier to just ban shirts without collars.  Clear and concise.

But as a final comment I support owners/managers right to set policy at their courses.  It is America after all.  If you don't like the dress code you have a couples of choices, either play somewhere else or suck it up and dress in accordance with the dress code. 

[David in FL]

21 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Here's my justification for the rules - "My Shop, My Rules.  Deal with it."

I am perfectly capable of identifying and protecting my own rights and privileges.  Where that is challenged, the government is tasked to help me out.  I don't need some clubhouse trying to do it.

 

Philosophically, rules and laws are only able to restrict freedoms.  Any rule that pretends to 'allow' or give something is poorly crafted or the writer doesn't understand the concept of rights.  So, in what way is someone protecting my rights or other's rights by requiring a restriction?  it's silly.

Restriction - Collared shirts are required (because we say so).

no issue with that. mealy mouthing around it?  don't be apologetic because you have standards and the authority to required it on your own property.

 

These are the same people that feel obligated to explain every nuance of every decision to their 8 year-old, when in reality, "Because I'm your dad and I said so!" is more than sufficient.

[rehmwa]

3 minutes ago, David in FL said:

These are the same people that feel obligated to explain every nuance of every decision to their 8 year-old, when in reality, "Because I'm your dad and I said so!" is more than sufficient.

But, if they don't, how are we to know how intelligent, nuanced, and sensitive they are???

[Fourputt]

20 hours ago, rehmwa said:

<<Insert libertarian stock quote here>>

We'll have to agree to disagree here.  Legal isn't moral nor right, especially when the oppressed one doesn't get a say in how the system is written.  I'll stick with the philosophy of 'whoever gets their money stolen from them, SHOULD get a say in the rules of how it's spent'

(I'm not a fan anyway of tax dollars being hijacked for fluffery like a golf course - if it's viable, then the private market will take care of the demand.)

 

So you don't think that local government should be in the way of providing any recreational opportunities for its taxpayers?  No parks, ball fields, tennis courts, etc.?  I don't see a municipal golf course as anything more than just another parks and rec offering.  My home course was built as a cash producer for the Foothills Recreation District.  It actually returns more than $1 million in profits annually to the District coffers, and thus helps to mitigate the cost of other District facilities like parks and trails, rec centers, and other activities like softball and soccer, along with other youth sports, none of which have ever been self supporting.  

Building and managing a golf course was one of the least costly decisions the District board has made in the last 50 years.  Maybe they just got lucky, or maybe the course is just better managed than many municipal courses, but I don't see any reason why a golf course shouldn't be part of a local government recreation plan if the constituency is large enough to mostly support it (and even better if it can draw users from outside of the tax base).

Such courses would just hurt themselves with overly restrictive dress codes.  To be viable, they need to bring in fees from the most casual players while not driving away the more dedicated golfer.  For that all that is needed is a minimal code, simply asking the player to be neat and clean.  Something as simple as that goes a long way toward making a course acceptable to almost all of the target customer base.  When they start specifying particular items of apparel, then they start eliminating "X%" of the revenue base, players who might otherwise be inclined to come in for a quick 9 after work, something that even a basic rule of requiring collared shirts might preclude.

[rehmwa]

15 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

So you don't think

I don't normally join a conversation that starts with this for obvious reasons

But I like the rest of your post very much, so will - good points.  Some municipal courses do make sense to me, especially when they leverage land that just can't be used for other means.  it's a balance - no single philosophy is all or nothing - that leads to terrible strawman discussions not worth participating in.

Edited June 7, 2017 by rehmwa

[Kalnoky]

31 minutes ago, David in FL said:

These are the same people that feel obligated to explain every nuance of every decision to their 8 year-old, when in reality, "Because I'm your dad and I said so!" is more than sufficient.

Yes, exactly. 

 

[Fourputt]

3 hours ago, rehmwa said:

I don't normally join a conversation that starts with this for obvious reasons

But I like the rest of your post very much, so will - good points.  Some municipal courses do make sense to me, especially when they leverage land that just can't be used for other means.  it's a balance - no single philosophy is all or nothing - that leads to terrible strawman discussions not worth participating in.

I didn't mean to give offense.  I just thought it odd that you would consider golf to be somehow less worthy of municipal sponsorship than other common forms of recreation.

[rehmwa]

7 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I didn't mean to give offense.  I just thought it odd that you would consider golf to be somehow less worthy of municipal sponsorship than other common forms of recreation.

You didn't at all 4P.  I kinda wandered between general philosophy and answering your note and that's my bad.  I think your post is dead on and I forget all the tennis I played as a kid on public courts.

(the written word is hard to convey tone, always imagine mine with a wry smile and that helps.  blue skies)

Edited June 7, 2017 by rehmwa

[Moxie Dawn]

My philosophy is the better you look on the course, the better you play. And even though that is absolutely not true at all, at least if you suck you look good doing it. 

Having said that, I think it is unfair that women seem to be allowed a tremendous amount of leeway in attire, while men have a lot of restrictions, particularly the collared shirt rule. I happen to have a friend with Asperger's Syndrome, and a collared shirt drives him crazy. His job actually gives him an accommodation to not wear a shirt with a collar. And there are plenty of shirt designs with no collar that are perfectly nice looking and not just a t-shirt. The henley is a good example. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Moxie Dawn

[Zekez]

15 hours ago, Moxie Dawn said:

My philosophy is the better you look on the course, the better you play. And even though that is absolutely not true at all, at least if you suck you look good doing it. 

Having said that, I think it is unfair that women seem to be allowed a tremendous amount of leeway in attire, while men have a lot of restrictions, particularly the collared shirt rule. I happen to have a friend with Asperger's Syndrome, and a collared shirt drives him crazy. His job actually gives him an accommodation to not wear a shirt with a collar. And there are plenty of shirt designs with no collar that are perfectly nice looking and not just a t-shirt. The henley is a good example. 

Not true at all for me.  I am way more comfortable in shorts and  a t shirt than in a pants and a collared shirt.  Case in point:  Last night was cloudy and a bit chilly so i wore pants and a collared shirt.  Worst round all year!! :)

Edited June 8, 2017 by Zekez

[zipazoid]

I remember growing up in Northeast Ohio, whenever summer would finally hit you would have these morons who would take their shirts off on the golf course. In 35+ years of living in South Florida, I have never once seen that.

So I totally understand a dress code for golfing, but I think it's too restrictive (collared shirts). No shit, no shoes, no service would be my dress code if I ran a course. 

[rehmwa]

33 minutes ago, zipazoid said:

No shit, no shoes, no service would be my dress code if I ran a course. 

agreed on the first part especially

[zipazoid]

17 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

agreed on the first part especially

OOPS! Freudian mistake there!

And now I can't edit it! No shit! ;)

Edited June 9, 2017 by zipazoid