Get back to me when you 1) grow up and 2) are able to provide links and quoted text to where I "defended their right to treat someone poorly without reason."*

Get back to me when you 1) grow up and 2) are able to provide links and quoted text to where I "defended their right to treat someone poorly without reason."*

At no point have I expressed an interest in what you believe or have to say at all, yet you keep replying.

Get back to me when you 1) grow up and 2) are able to provide links and quoted text to where I "defended their right to treat someone poorly without reason."*

Ah, using a neurodevelopmental disorder as an insult - classy!

You're like a 9-year old who is so excited to discover their first swear word that they want to use it as much as possible - so cute...!

Get back to me when you 1) grow up and 2) are able to provide links and quoted text to where I "defended their right to treat someone poorly without reason."*

No, everyone (including you) has been arguing against points that I never made. The writer of this piece admitted I was right on my first point (she was not "banned"), and nobody has proven that a behind-the-scenes dress code conspiracy is the reasoning behind these employees' actions.

So mature! So unable to back up your claims! So sad..!!!

You misquoted me - and now you are conflating that instance with a different paragraph regarding some possible reasons I listed (but do not necessarily believe). Again, let's stick with actual facts here, and not mix things up to suit whatever your argument is.

Really bolstering your credibility there, aren't you...?

Again:

Please point out specifically where I "defended their right to treat someone poorly without reason." Link and quoted text, please.

Do you not grasp the concept that calling yourself something is not the same as being publicly humiliated by strangers?

No, it is "nitpicky" stuff like this that is the difference between actual fact and misrepresentation or "spinning" a story to mislead readers. When it comes to reporting news stories - while purportedly presenting facts - being "nitpicky" is extremely important. It is misleading tactics such as this that make the…

....aaaaand still missing the entire point. Congrats again...!

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…