The injustice the friendly manager committed against me was arguably minor, however nonzero, permanently lasting, and disturbing in principle. I was already biased in Jack’s favor upon arriving, having read the negative reviews and his responses thereto. As a business owner myself, I know the customer is usually wrong in such disputes, especially in the service industry. Jack has to deal with rude, puerile customers here and in person. Jack has been unfairly slandered at times in these reviews. I still suspect Jack is mostly innocent and falsely criticized in the vast majority of the negative reviews.

A few moments after I sat down amicably greeted by the bartender, the manager, Jack, politely informed me the tank top I was wearing was not allowed. I respectfully indicated that I would return shortly with a nicer shirt. Jack assured me they’d be open to 3 and I was welcome to return. It was clear that I would have been ordered to leave if I did not respectfully acquiesce to the manager’s polite request. Jack said it had been this way for 22 years.

In this very quick exchange, I asked Jack if I could have possibly known about the no-tank-top rule. I forget his exact words, but he admitted to me the rule was unpublished: that not any similarly situated customer in my shoes could have possibly known of this rule before entering. I examined all signage, as well as the Google Maps profile and the listed website. The rule is as secret as it is anomalous in the industry context of the casual atmosphere and price range found at Porterhouse.

Jack committed three injustices against me. 1) By depriving all conscious-rule-abiding customers any possible advance notice whatsoever of the secret dress-code before arriving, Jack unfairly cost me the time and embarrassment of having to leave and perform the change in clothing; 2) the business’s failure to give any reasonable prospective client advance notice of rules which are in excess of prevailing social norms newly and permanently deprived me of my claim to the status of never in my life having been asked to leave a restaurant due to dress-code-non-compliance; 3) Jack committed intentional or unintentional gender bias by applying a differing, relaxed set of rules to females in his business, which I detail as follows.

The female bartender who greeted me was herself wearing a very revealing black tank-top. The cutaneous surface area exposed to air on her part far exceeded mine, with midsection visible. Her attire was socially appropriate and contextually apt for May in Miami while working at a loud bar, as was mine while attending. However, a prohibition against wearing tank-tops was selectively applied against me as a male customer. I note there was also a female customer at the bar who donned clothing exposing her shoulders. She was never confronted over infraction of dress code.

I support the business’s legal right to make whatever rules it wants; even the gender discrimination I experienced should not be unlawful in my opinion. It is, however, morally contemptible. Jack’s abject failure to empower me with any way of discovering his rules until unwilfully violating them, and his failure to apply the same rule to at least one and likely two other females in his property, is reasonable cause for a lower review than I graciously leave out of profound deference and benefit of the doubt to the manager. He seems like a generally highly respectable individual, however he ought to create a proper website and/or signage apprising customers of his longstanding gender-discriminating no-tank-top-for-males-only rule.

The manager did not welcome or acknowledge me during my dress-compliant return and stay for dinner. I ordered the signature Porterhouse steak. It was superbly excellent. The service was competent, timely, and professional. I may return to have another excellent meal; if so, I would hope to be politely greeted by the manager just as he had greeted the woman who was sitting next to me at the bar after I returned, paying no further attention to me.