Wouldn't life be more convenient if you didn't need to throw on a shirt. You'd save time. It's one less thing you'd have to do to be presentable in public.

Men are allowed to go other places without a shirt. So what's so special about a store? You think your store is better than the beach or something. Your store couldn't hope to be as cool as the beach, in part because it has lame ass rules that have nothing to do with shopping or being able to sell more stuff.

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Just because you can make a catchy phase with expanding length per clause doesn't make it reasonable.

To that I say, friends, nobles, countrymen, take off your shirts!

I guess equality becomes an issue. But no one is boycotting the beach over equality. So similarly your store's popularity will not be impacted by an equality issue. And as a store owner that's what should matter. Restriction for equality makes no sense anyway. I remember a conversation I had with a realtor once and he was explaining the faux-ethics they have to follow. He was buying in on it, but I saw through the bullshit. He said you can't describe a property as being walking distance from a store. Why? Because it fails to take into account people who can't walk. So instead you should describe it as being near. So we replaced one already subjective term for one that is 100x more subjective? So now everyone just has less information including the lame who probably have some idea of what walking distance is over "near." It makes no sense to reduce the options of one person just to create a meaningless parity with another person.

In short this is why men should be allowed to shop without a shirt.

Discuss.