I stayed at a small hotel in Florida and once I made a comment when checking in that I tended to wear small swimsuits. The person at the desk said that was no problem, but I had to wear something by state law. Obsiously not the case since clothing optional resorts allow nude swimming.
Similarly, I have seen that some clothing optional resorts say you can use the exercise room nude while others say that shorts are required.
Examples of people saying something is state law when it is really the owner's preference?
I encounter this with barefootedness. Many people actually believe there are state laws regarding wearing shoes in particular situations. There are some laws of that nature, but they only apply to people who are working in certain situations. OSHA, for example, requires shoes when someone is working in an environment with rolling and falling hazards. State health departments require anyone working in food service to wear shoes.
But those laws do not apply to customers, visitors, patients, clients, patrons, etc. There is not and never has been a law in the US that requires a customer (or any non-worker/employee) to wear shoes in a grocery store, restaurant, medical facility, doctor's office, cafe, shopping mall, court room, massage parlor, government office, dentist's office, theater, etc.
Nonetheless, that has not stopped people from telling me that I was required by state law to wear shoes in some business establishment. I'm well prepared for this and can easily shoot down any and all arguments in that regard. And, although I respect an individual business owner's right to set any dress code they believe is appropriate for their business, they put themselves at great legal liability if they do.
Let's not confuse state laws with local ordinances, which may vary from city to city and county to county. And gyms have a perfect right to require shorts, since that simplifies keeping the equipment clean.As usual, "When in Rome..."
Not arguing the right to require it, just that they shouldn't claim that it is a state law. Still, sitting on a towel should be as effective at keeping equipment clean as wearing shorts.
If it was a law there would be no need for the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs.
Those signs and the myth that they were backed by health code started in the 60s. Restaurant owners didn't want to serve hippies. Rather than saying, "We don't want your kind here," they started the myth that the Health Department requires shoes in restaurants. Hippies were more than willing to blame the government and accepted the "truth" of the myth without question.
And, you're right. If the law actually existed, there would be no need for such signs.
Some states do allow a business owner to refuse service to anyone, with certain restrictions of course. I've been to more than one place that requires meant to wear neckties. So I can see where "No shoes, no shirt no service" would be legitimate. Don't argue with me, take it up with the store, restaurant or whatever.
Remember if you go into a shop etc you are going into a private property so it will be their decision what you must have on before you go in but you are right they are wrong for them to say it is the state law for this. In the UK the shop owners say it is for hygiene reasons why I must cover my top half before going in but they are very unlikely to try to stop someone with dirty cloths on going in.