Regardless of what your points are, you wrongly defined my argument / points - I was pointing that out. If you want to discuss something civilly, don't misquote the person with whom you are arguing. I never said the employees "were just trying to be professional". Perhaps you forgot that, when you jump into the middle…

Ah - makes sense...

Not sure if you are arguing or agreeing here...

First of all, not once have I defended their behavior - to the contrary, I said that they were wrong. I only clarified the reason behind their not letting her swim in the pool with that particular swimsuit on. Read before replying. And I never said it was "ok" for the employees in the first incident to have harassed…

Congratulations on missing the entire point.

"So pedantic this evening! Hush now, snarkypants." - this phrase was written specifically to ridicule. Let's at least be honest with our own intent before criticizing that of strangers you read about on the internet through the words of someone who is angry. What is clear is that you have an inflated sense of ego and…

I am talking about the second incident, at a different pool, with a different group of employees, in which she was not ridiculed - the incident in which she was actually not allowed to swim in the pool with that swimsuit. In that situation, there is no evidence that points to the supervisor wanting to "whore shame"…

What's also funny is that, in your first response to me, you criticize the employee at the first pool (even though I was talking specifically about the incident at the second pool) for ridiculing this woman - after jumping into the discussion simply to ridicule me. You might want to not do exactly what you are…

No, the source article says "again, she ran into problems" - that does not mean she was also treated with ridicule ("similar manner") at the second pool. And as I've already said, t is quite possible that they are either told or simply think "If it looks like underwear, it's not allowed" just to stay on the safe side…

Thanks for getting back. Out of curiosity, do you know why they used it in the URL...?

That's nice.

No, I said they were acting in accordance to rules that are based on Health Code. And yes - a Health Code does exist. It was simply wrongly applied here, as I have stated. I am not arguing that she was actually in violation of the code. Also, you seem to have missed (or are intentionally ignoring) this part of my…

"YOU are not allowed in this pool at all" and "You cannot swim in this pool in that specific outfit" are two different things. The first one is banning the person, the second is not.

No, my points are that 1) She was not "Banned" from either pool (though she was prohibited from swimming in the second with that particular swimsuit on) and 2) Employees were enforcing rules that are based on Health Codes, which is different than a dress code. The writer claimed that she was banned (which she was…

Yes, I know. I read the story, as well as the source article. Do you have a point..?

Nothing in the source article says she was banned.

I am basing my opinion of what her suit looked like on the actual photo of her in her actual suit, as posted in the source article:

..um, ok...?

Oh. my GOD you are an idiot. I was talking ONLY about the second situation. from the very beginning - THAT is what you initially responded to. Yes - I already acknowledged the employees were in the wrong. I never said they weren't. And yes, the employee at the first pool was an asshole for making fun of her. I never…

I am talking about the incident at the second pool, you idiot.