Richard McGuire, editor

It’s probably not surprising that a story about women’s breasts is highly polarizing.

Recently the Osoyoos Golf Club issued new uniform shirts to servers at the Greenside Grill, along with a dress code that employees were required to initial and sign.

That code said: “Women must wear either a tank top or bra under their uniform shirt.”

Christina Schell, 25, a recently hired employee of the restaurant, who has been working in the hospitality business since she was in her early teens, and says she’s never had any disciplinary issues, took exception to the rule.

Schell said she’s chosen not to wear a bra for comfort and health reasons over the past three years, while working at other restaurants, and it’s never been an issue.

When the general manager of the club told her, allegedly, that she couldn’t continue in the job unless she signed the dress code, Schell decided to contest the matter and she filed a complaint with the B.C. Rights Tribunal.

To be clear, the uniform shirts are opaque and completely cover the area of the body in question. But they are 100 per cent polyester and have a silky texture that may show the slight bump of a nipple below the material.

“I’d love to know why my boobs offend somebody,” said Schell. “They’re not hanging down by my waist,” she added, saying that even if they did, it would be her problem, not a concern of her employers.

The reader reaction has been fierce, and it hasn’t necessarily followed gender or age lines. Some of the most vicious opinions have been expressed by other women, not all of them seniors.

Indeed Schell said she was taken aback by some of the attacks on her in social media in response to other media coverage of the story.

There seems to be a widely held view that women’s breasts, even behind an opaque shirt, are inherently disgusting, or “gross” as one women put it on the Osoyoos Times Facebook page.

Some feel Schell is seeking attention – even though she’s been working bra-less at other restaurants for the past three years with no one making an issue about it.

We’ve also heard the comment that her attitude is “unprofessional” and that her employer has every right to maintain a dress code that requires employees to be “professional” in their appearance.

But others feel equally strongly that a woman’s choice of undergarment, or the decision not to wear one, is her business alone.

Moreover, to impose a restriction on women, while not imposing a comparable restriction on men, is discriminatory, some say. And that’s the basis of Schell’s human rights complaint.

Although this issue has never come before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, any legal opinions we’ve come across suggest Schell has a valid legal case. Of course, it’s impossible to predict how the tribunal would rule before it happens.

Simply put, a dress code standard must apply comparably between men and women. That doesn’t mean, of course, that men would suddenly need to wear bras, though some men do have pronounced breasts.

But it could mean that a restrictive dress code, to comply with the law, would instead have to specify that employees (regardless of gender) must wear an undergarment below their shirt. That could mean that men would need to wear an undershirt, and women could choose to do the same instead of wearing a bra.

There is an exception to human rights laws on discrimination where there is a “bone fide occupational requirement” that would make discrimination acceptable.

This could, for example, be used to keep a disabled person from doing a particular job, such as a blind person wanting to drive a truck. But the mere fact that some clients of the golf course hold puritanical attitudes about women’s bodies would probably not meet the threshold.

Some would argue that this whole discussion is making a mountain out of a mole hill, so to speak. Schell should simply suck it up if she wants her job, they say.

We all must pick our battles, but in this case, she feels the right of women not to be forced to wear a constricting bra is important enough to her. And she’s probably within her legal rights.

The argument of some that the golf club is a private club, and therefore has the right to discriminate, simply has no legal basis. To take a more extreme example, suppose the club fired a server because some racist customers complained about being served by someone of a different ethnicity. That clearly would be illegal discrimination.

Where you come down on this issue probably has something to do with your gender and age, but much more likely with your upbringing.

Despite what some people think, many “morals” are not absolute. Rather they are decided by members of society who are constantly negotiating the boundaries on issues such as gender, sexuality and religion. And morals are evolving.

Gone are the days when it was considered “indecent” for women to show their ankles – at least in this country. But many people still believe that the outline of a female nipple is sexually provocative, even suggesting that men can’t control their impulses and therefore it’s a woman’s duty to cover up. And some have fought hard to try to prohibit women from breastfeeding in public.

These puritanical attitudes are at odds with my own upbringing. My mother, who enjoyed skinny dipping, would often walk around naked in front of my sisters and me when we were very little, even back in the late 1950s. She taught us that the human body is natural and is nothing to be ashamed of.

But she also taught us to respect the views of others who believed differently.

I certainly have no ill will toward the Osoyoos Golf Club. But I hope they seek legal advice and take steps to ensure their policies are not discriminatory.

In my conversation with Schell, she struck me as someone who has a professional attitude, but just feels strongly that this is a matter of her rights as a woman.

I know that if my employer suddenly introduced a dress code requiring male employees to wear jock straps, I’d be filing a human rights complaint myself.

If Schell’s case does go before the tribunal, I’ll be rooting for her – not just for her, but all women who oppose Victorian double standards dictating their choice of undergarment.

RICHARD McGUIRE

Osoyoos Times