EUGENE, Ore. - Sandy McMillin spent less than ten bucks on the bikini that she says got her kicked out of Walmart on Sunday.
The teeny turquoise top triggered a huge response from the community - and all over the world.
As soon as the story aired on TV and appeared online, viewers wanted to weigh in.
People e-mailed KVAL News from New Jersey, Ohio, Arkansas and even England.
KVAL.com exploded thousands of hits to the story. The same story racked up over 100,000 pageviews on KOMONews.com in Seattle.
The comments poured in on the KVAL Facebook page.
One man felt moved to call the newsroom from Chicago.
"Last I checked there wasn't any swimming pools in Walmart," Joe Johnson told KVAL News after he saw the story on AOL. "Some people have lost touch with a certain level of decency."
Reactions varied.
Most emails and online comments were harsh and unsympathetic, if not inappropriate for a civil discourse.
KVAL News showed a picture of McMillin in the outfit to people walking into the Post Office on River Road.
These citizens on the street were more sympathetic.
"If you are going to discriminate somebody because she's got a bathing suit on the top, I think that's kind of ridiculous," said Gary Jenkins.
So what really happened to McMillin at Walmart? She tells one story, the store tells another.
But we do know her $10 turquoise top definitely stirred the pot.
In Ohio, unless they have a sign up, women dont have to wear a top at all. Girls can walk down the street or buy groceries topless if they want. Not saying its good taste or sense, but its the law. Supreme Court here made it legal when a women fought the city of Columbus in court because she was arrested several times mowing her lawn topless when men are allowed to do the same thing. Supreme Court ruled that is was sex discrimination...plain and simple.
In Ohio, unless they have a sign up, women dont have to wear a top at all. Girls can walk down the street or buy groceries topless if they want. Not saying its good taste or sense, but its the law. Supreme Court here made it legal when a women fought the city of Columbus in court because she was arrested several times mowing her lawn topless when men are allowed to do the same thing. Supreme Court ruled that is was sex discrimination...plain and simple.
I bet you see naked women all the time there too. I somehow picture that as one of the arguments whatever side was against the ruling used.
Brad
IP: Logged
12:15 PM
PFF
System Bot
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
I bet you see naked women all the time there too. I somehow picture that as one of the arguments whatever side was against the ruling used.
Brad
There's an annual event that takes place in Columbus (Comfest) where you'll see women walking around topless all weekend. Roger is absolutely correct, it's perfectly legal for women to go topless here. Although, in this woman's case, they would probably make an exception and arrest her anyway. Blech.
Wasn't she the same woman who went to Walmart with her two young children? When the Greeter opend the door to let them through, he remarked to her 'Nice twins you have there, Madam'. She curled her lip, scowled a him, and raged 'You stupid fool One is 3, and the other is 5! What the Heck makes you think they are TWINS????? Dam'ned FOOL!!!' The Greeter just smiled, and said 'Well, I just couldn't BELIEVE you could find somebody to do ya TWICE!'
I am really digging this new click to show thing Cliffs got goin on! Its great when I can quickly click on it again before I see too much! Going to bleach my eyes out now
In Ohio, unless they have a sign up, women dont have to wear a top at all. Girls can walk down the street or buy groceries topless if they want. Not saying its good taste or sense, but its the law. Supreme Court here made it legal when a women fought the city of Columbus in court because she was arrested several times mowing her lawn topless when men are allowed to do the same thing. Supreme Court ruled that is was sex discrimination...plain and simple.
From the picture, she had pants on too. so as long as she had shoes too it was legal. May not be a pretty sight, but she did conform to the rules.
However, walmart is a private company and can refuse service if they like. They could ban blue hair if they liked. Not smart for business, but their right.
"Just because she is not attractive, does not mean she doesn't have to same rights everyone else does."
I have read this many times and the wording is not right I am guessing....It leaves the meaning of the statement unclear....Or am I just missing something?
Apparently. Except for the superfluous comma it's a perfectly good, unambiguous sentence. I had no trouble understanding its meaning on the first read. (I'm not going to try to diagram it, though. )
Edit: I stand corrected. See below.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-01-2011).]
Apparently. Except for the superfluous comma it's a perfectly good, unambiguous sentence. I had no trouble understanding its meaning on the first read. (I'm not going to try to diagram it, though. )
Just because she is not attractive, does not mean she doesn't ( have to same rights everyone else does).
So the parts I sectioned off sounds correct to you? HAVE TO SAME RIGHTS EVERYONE ELSE DOES> Doesn't have to what? If the To was a The then the sentence would make sense....
IP: Logged
02:00 PM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I stand corrected. I misread it as, "... have THE same rights everyone else does." Sometimes it's hard to suppress reading for content, which is why proofreading is such a valuable skill.
I stand corrected. I misread it as, "... have THE same rights everyone else does." Sometimes it's hard to suppress reading for content, which is why proofreading is such a valuable skill.
WHOOO...Thought I was going crazy....I re-read the sentence like 50 times thinking what am I missing....
What was that guy thinking when he put that titsling on? 
I somehow picture that as one of the arguments whatever side was against the ruling used. 
