Dress codes can reinforce a hotel or club's exclusivity, or set limits on informality in more relaxed establishments. In the case of the latter, the codes can be explicit, such as 'dress: neat casual', or 'no flip-flops'. In more upmarket establishments, the rules are more likely to be unspoken - until a staff member discreetly refuses entry to someone who does not comply with the code.
As we report today, this is what happened to Verdy Leung Wai-yee when he tried to enter the InterContinental Hotel's coffee shop wearing a singlet.
Mr Leung claims the hotel discriminates against men because women are permitted to wear such tops, and says the Equal Opportunities Commission has promised to investigate. This recalls a similar complaint laid with the commission soon after it was set up nine years ago. This one was filed by women.
A well-known Hong Kong securities firm had issued a dress code that banned female employees from wearing trousers to work and introduced fines for offenders. The policy was abandoned after widespread protests. But the commission circulated a draft code on employment practices which claimed the trouser ban did not discriminate against women, since men were also restricted in what they could wear. They could not, for example, choose between trousers and a skirt. The draft, written by consultants, was ridiculed and later revised.
Administration of discrimination policy has come a long way since then and Mr Leung can expect a less technical interpretation. A commission spokeswoman would only say that on dress codes, a service provider needed to apply the same standard to both genders.
Mr Leung's case raises interesting questions about dress codes in our top hotels. The InterContinental is one of many that have a code that bars men from wearing summer casual attire including sleeveless tops, shorts or flip-flops. Women, on the other hand, are free to wear tank tops, shorts and sandals.