Woman denied entry to church

Samaris

melissak wrote: »

I didn't see the child. I was looking for why the dress was objectional. I will watch it again when internet speeds up. YouTube won't load at the minute.
I agree that social rights come with responsibilities but i don't believe this lady was wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCxLI_djvxw It's another video of the same encounter, although I don't know if this one's in the thread. One of the kids was at 0.52 and again at 1.22, although you only see her for a sec. I thought there was a sprog in green too, but I may be misremembering.

Actually, you see her so briefly that I'm not absolutely sure if she's a kid or not. I think she is, but can't tell in that quick a clip.

I dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of those clothes were part of the whole issue.

melissak

I wouldn't be gone on the bare midsection on a child (or teenager it is hard to tell) tbh but the adult women looked fine. In fact the woman who was allowed in past them had a dress as short or shorter than the woman in white. Nothing wrong with it of course. Perfectly respectable,but the same length as hers. Surely if it was just that child the rest could go in and not be sneered at and someone could give the kid a shirt

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCxLI_djvxw It's another video of the same encounter, although I don't know if this one's in the thread. One of the kids was at 0.52 and again at 1.22, although you only see her for a sec. I thought there was a sprog in green too, but I may be misremembering.

Actually, you see her so briefly that I'm not absolutely sure if she's a kid or not. I think she is, but can't tell in that quick a clip.

I dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of those clothes were part of the whole issue.

One eyed Jack

melissak wrote: »

I wouldn't be gone on the bare midsection on a child (or teenager it is hard to tell) tbh but the adult women looked fine. In fact the woman who was allowed in past them had a dress as short or shorter than the woman in white. Nothing wrong with it of course. Perfectly respectable,but the same length as hers. Surely if it was just that child the rest could go in and not be sneered at and someone could give the kid a shirt

Yeah, that's true, but the difference in the dresses was that one was see through, and one wasn't - there was no underwear on show. The woman hadn't done anything wrong as such, simply made an unfortunate error in judgement that she thought it was appropriate attire for the occasion. It turned out the priest who was conducting the ceremony didn't think so, and then it all kicked off from there. The guards were called and all to remove her from the church, it should never have escalated to that level and it does traveller people no favours when they want acceptance in society, but they're not prepared to play by society's rules. One generally understood rule is that the communion day is about the children, it's not about the adults, and nobody needs a limelight stealer on their special day.

melissak

But the dress is not see through. Vaguely visible pant line is not see through.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, that's true, but the difference in the dresses was that one was see through, and one wasn't - there was no underwear on show. The woman hadn't done anything wrong as such, simply made an unfortunate error in judgement that she thought it was appropriate attire for the occasion. It turned out the priest who was conducting the ceremony didn't think so, and then it all kicked off from there. The guards were called and all to remove her from the church, it should never have escalated to that level and it does traveller people no favours when they want acceptance in society, but they're not prepared to play by society's rules. One generally understood rule is that the communion day is about the children, it's not about the adults, and nobody needs a limelight stealer on their special day.

Boom_Bap

melissak wrote: »

But the dress is not see through. Vaguely visible pant line is not see through.

I think the main cause of concern was the length rather than the transparency...although that could also have been on the no-no list distributed.

One eyed Jack

melissak wrote: »

But the dress is not see through. Vaguely visible pant line is not see through.

Hmmm...





I mean, it's not as though anyone needs to squint to see what's going on there, unintentionally visible perhaps, but once notified of it, can you see at all why it might have been a prudent move to suggest that she cover herself up a bit? If she were going out clubbing it's an appropriate dress, but she's attending as a guest of the family at a communion. I mean, can you not at all see why her attire might have been inappropriate?

I can accept the priest handled it badly and could have handled it better, but the woman herself could have handled it better too is all I'm saying.

melissak

But then why no issue with the lady who was let in with a similar length of dress. Her dress was 2inches above the knee, if that. I have a conservative dress sense, I've even been accused of prudishness on occasion but i don't see the problem here.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think the main cause of concern was the length rather than the transparency...although that could also have been on the no-no list distributed.

One eyed Jack

melissak wrote: »

But then why no issue with the lady who was let in with a similar length of dress. Her dress was 2inches above the knee, if that. I have a conservative dress sense, I've even been accused of prudishness on occasion but i don't see the problem here.

I don't think it's actually the length is the problem, it's the fact that the dress itself leaves feckall to the imagination

I'm as far from prude myself as it gets btw, that's just something people say when other people point out that they look like a bit of a tit :pac:


EDIT: I didn't realise it was the length of the dress as Boom_Bap says. In that case then, well, yeah, in that case then the priest was well out of order if his problem was with the length of the dress. That just sounds like a poor excuse and does indeed sound like she was being singled out for special mistreatment.

Boom_Bap

melissak wrote: »

But then why no issue with the lady who was let in with a similar length of dress. Her dress was 2inches above the knee, if that. I have a conservative dress sense, I've even been accused of prudishness on occasion but i don't see the problem here.

That I cannot tell you that, I'm just correcting some of the information that has been added to the thread which is not accurate.