92 posts in this topic

Part of being a free nation means that a private business has the right to decide who enters their establishment and who doesn't as long as it doesn't violate that rule by banning or refusing a protected class.

 

So basically you're free until you annoy a business... Yeah, that makes sense...

 

Real freedom is about human rights, not corporate rights. People power.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your going to a swimming pool that's suppose to be for kids/families I don't think you should wear a g-string bikini and her bra is too small. If it's a public area like a beach or a hotel I think it's fine.

 

Fact is the g-string bikini became popular because people liked to see sexy women be more sexy and the women liked to be more sexy themselves and get more attention etc. But when you see a man or a not very attractive women reveal the same amount of skin, people realize, oh wait that's kinda disgusting. So I'm not saying the g-string bikini and small bra's should be banned but it has it's time and place. You should really think if it suits your surroundings, you don't wear underwear to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She has stated it was "too sexy" no one else, I'll reserve judgement when both sides of the story are told. This also shows our freedom at work, the owners of the property are FREE to choose their own rules for park entrance and allowed behavoir of their patrons.

free?dom

The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

 

Clearly she didn't have the freedom to wear an outfit that she felt was appropriate, which was the point being made. The reality is that freedom cannot exist without limitations as inevitably it will intrude upon the freedoms of another person or entity. It is ridiculous to claim that this was an example of freedom being upheld as that can be said of any situation - for instance, an oppressive government could claim it was simply expressing its freedom to commit mass genocide. Americans pride themselves on freedom but don't seem to understand the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually doesn't matter if it was private or public, the only thing that counts for discrimination is protected classes...

 

  • Age
  • Pregnancy
  • National Origin
  • Race
  • Ethnic Background
  • Religious Beliefs
  • Sexual Orientation

You still can't arbitrarily throw out some people while letting other people stay with the same clothes, that is discriminatory to the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't a private business. And even then you have to apply the same rules to everyone. You can't let the young girls wear skimpy bikinis while throwing out people you don't like for wearing a bikini. Then it's discrimination, which is illegal.

I have yet to see any water parks where young and old people alike don't wear bikinis like that or skimpier. Girls don't really wear one piece bathing suits much anymore.

 

Have been to the park in question? What other parks allow have no bearing here do they? Why have you decided their were others dressed as skimpy as her? You have no way of knowing if people at this park were showing as much skin as her.

free?dom

The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

 

Clearly she didn't have the freedom to wear an outfit that she felt was appropriate, which was the point being made. The reality is that freedom cannot exist without limitations as inevitably it will intrude upon the freedoms of another person or entity. It is ridiculous to claim that this was an example of freedom being upheld as that can be said of any situation - for instance, an oppressive government could claim it was simply expressing its freedom to commit mass genocide. Americans pride themselves on freedom but don't seem to understand the concept.

 

Understand the concept? You right to freedom ends at the point it infringes on others, or could cause harm to others. She was infringing on the right of the waterpark to set standards for the attire they allowed their guest to wear, which as a business they have the right to do. I have never been to this park, so I do not know if others were running around showing as much skin as her, so I have no way of knowing if she was denied freedoms granted other patrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a water park. I honestly understand the argument that some attire isn't appropriate in some situations but a water park and a bikini... that would be like throwing a guy out of a wood shop for wearing safety goggles :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that every picture of the woman has her bottom covered. That  is the part the park says needed to be covered up. yet every picture I have seen of this woman has that very part covered up.

 

that is exactly what i was thinking.   

 

I assume this "normal from the front" bikini, is like a g-string in the back, so her bare ass is hanging out.

 

in that case,  yes, i think it is fair that they threw her out.

 

My guess, that in the waterpark this is what is happening.   (and I agree!)

 

OK:

kim-kardashian-ass-bikini.jpg

 

NOT OK:

2654-1.jpg

 

DEFINATELY NOT OK:

 

11-borat-bikini-lg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There does seem to be a human desire to at least occasionally show oneself, naked. :huh:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double standard much?

So long as everyone in the world is pointing out the US is better than the rest of the world in everyway, shape, and form, there's no problem.

But when the role has been reversed we have to shut up? Or we're nitpicking? (Which will probably be coming soon)

 

Define everyone.

 

The only people I see saying the US is better than the rest of the world in every way are those trying to start political fights.  That certainly isn't everyone.  In fact, a lot of the people starting political fights on Neowin aren't even from/in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that every picture of the woman has her bottom covered. That  is the part the park says needed to be covered up. yet every picture I have seen of this woman has that very part covered up.

 

 

The park didn't say anything about what part needed to be covered up, just swimsuit in general.  That doesn't imply the bottom half.

that is exactly what i was thinking.   

 

I assume this "normal from the front" bikini, is like a g-string in the back, so her bare ass is hanging out.

 

in that case,  yes, i think it is fair that they threw her out.

 

My guess, that in the waterpark this is what is happening.   (and I agree!)

 

OK:

kim-kardashian-ass-bikini.jpg

 

NOT OK:

2654-1.jpg

 

DEFINATELY NOT OK:

 

11-borat-bikini-lg.jpg

 

 

If you look at the photos, there are ties on her lower half.  It is a lot less likely her bottom half is a g-string with ties.  Obviously it is conjecture on our parts regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's what you like then sure, up to you. I personally think she's damn fine, especially for her age. But if you prefer Women with the body of a 10 year old Chinese Boy, go for it.

 

That picture you posted and what she really had on from what I hear isn't no where near the same, there was a reason they kicked her out and singled her out I'm sure around many others that had similar outfits or bikini's on, we don't know all the facts but if it was a pure "String" bikini it was likely over kill for her body type which I didn't say was anything wrong with.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*grabs eye bleach...turns out it's actually 100 percent bleach....but that's okay. I'd rather have that in my eyes than...HOLY OMG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMFAO @ those compulsory "eye bleach" posts every time these kind of news pops up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first page, this has somehow turned into an anti-US, anti-conservative, anti-guns argument? Over a bikini? Grow up people. Yeah it's stupid, get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO!! going by the title, I thought that was HUM for a second! I was like, finally a picture of HUM, a face to put to the name....

 

(I have never know if HUM is male of female)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO!! going by the title, I thought that was HUM for a second! I was like, finally a picture of HUM, a face to put to the name....

 

(I have never know if HUM is male of female)

For some reason I read shemale. 

Pardon me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she was thrown out because she was 43. WAtch the video in the source...other girls, a lot younger, wearing pretty much the same thing,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not bad for 46, the years have been kind. On another.note I see more revealing swimsuits worn by teenagers walking.downtown..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somehow i believe the actual reason she was thrown out is because she look repulsive in that bikini,

but saying somebody is 'repulsive' are unacceptable bigotry , so they change it to 'too sexy'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it was a private water park, the owner can make what ever rules they want....

No they cant.

They cannot say "You cannot enter my private property because you are black"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they cant.

They cannot say "You cannot enter my private property because you are black".

It depends on the state law, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO!! going by the title, I thought that was HUM for a second! I was like, finally a picture of HUM, a face to put to the name....

 

(I have never know if HUM is male or female)

 

 

Both -- or neither -- depending on your point of view. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they cant.

They cannot say "You cannot enter my private property because you are black"

Yes they can. Doesn't mean they will stay in business for long but it is actually legal. If I was racist against blacks, I could tell them to get off of my property. There is no law saying you can't as long as it is private property. However, most businesses are not on private property. They are on commerical city property which has its own set of rules. The whole story would depend on a lot of variables, but there is no law that expilicitly states that you can't keep someone off your property, for any reason. If that weren't the case, police could walk right into your home. But as I said, good luck staying in business after one event like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NOT OK:

2654-1.jpg

 

 

 

What's not OK about that?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt it somehow, it's usually right wingers that bellyache about the evils of sexual expression and "modesty", after all it's the corner most of the uptight Christians reside in.

 

depends what type of Christian you are I guess.  I seen nothing wrong with it and I'm a Christian.  You have the uptight ones just like you have uptight liberal ones which is why this shouldn't be a political issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.