And as other people have mentioned upthread, in my society, Victorian is fine. From the sounds of it this garden is used for both casual visits and special events, which means they already permit a wide variety of costume styles to be worn by their patrons.
I refuse, absolutely, to have any corporation decide what goes for society in general. If they want to dictate a dress code to their actual employees, that’s something else again.
Since when is historical context “curmudgeonly facts”? 
So, you’re denying the reality that a hat can be a part of a costume? That’s what you’re going with? Good luck with that.
Do you not know @popobawa4u?
What doe any of what you are asking here have to do with maintaining the distinction between private and public? This is all tangential to the point of what you quoted - which is that the obvious way to admit only those who abide your rules is to not advertise it as being open to the public.
For example, if I have a party at “my house”, which runs all week, and has billboards and adverts telling all and sundry to come, I would be a fool to be surprised that some might flout my rules. This has no bearing on my right to set those rules. But it establishes that my more pragmatic concern is maximizing attendance, and that qualifying it with rules would be poor marketing. Why do Disney ads still say “own it on DVD” rather than “license the use of our content”? Because it sounds better, and they know that they can maximize their profits by trying to have it both ways. But it is not realistic, and does not inspire respect.
My own position is that I respect such rules if they are openly posted and relatively unambiguous. If they only inform me once I travel there, or bury it in crypto-legalese, then not so much.
It is nearly always rude to ask anyone - especially a lady - to remove their hats, excepting perhaps in a theatre.
Remember what I was saying about clarity? “Could be viewed as a costume” is pure weasel-wordery because it opens the criteria so much as to make it completely ambiguous and arbitrary. I “could be” viewed as wearing a costume if there was anything perceived as “inauthentic” about what I wear, and when I am travelling or planning outings I cannot be bothered to second-guess how others presume I should appear. And suggesting that 2016 is in no way a historical period seems tantamount to absurdity.
I am sure that they would have a much easier time of curating their preferred sort of clientèle if they instead were to run the place as a truly private establishment.
I’m noting that hats are generally allowed at the park and that it was very odd for the park to demand removal of their hats as a “compromise”, as if not wearing a hat would suddenly make their clothes manifestly different. The park very much seems to have been be playing dominance games with them.
The amusement park and the Gardens are both places where the public can enter, if they buy a ticket and agree to abide by the management’s rules. Buying a ticket doesn’t give you free reign to do whatever you want. The owner gets to make whatever rules they want (as long as they’re legal), and you are free to either buy a ticket and abide by those rules, or don’t buy a ticket and don’t go there. If the rules are particularly onerous, they may go out of business, but that’s how the free market works.
Or, we can call attention to the issue in the media, which may shame the company into changing its policies.
That’s it. They need to hold a Bats Day event at Butchart.
If they’re following the law, you’d just say they’re following the law. You wouldn’t have to say “they’re just being politically correct.”
[This is Canada, not the US, but if it were the US] They’d be within their rights if “costume wearers” were a protected class (or their dress was representative of their protected class).
Businesses are not allowed to discriminate if they are doing so against a protected class.
If you’re not in one of those classes (eg, against people who don’t wear shoes, against people who wear Victorian period costume), you’re on your own.
“Is” isn’t necessarily “ought”.
At least she isn’t allowed to vote.
Says you.
There’s always that one guy…
I hope they only use Authentic Whale Oil for their lamps at home. If not, they just aren’t committed enough to the project.
The judgement here was that the hat when coupled with the vintage clothing…made the outfit questionable as a ‘costume’ such as an employee in a ‘Victorian garden’ might be wearing. Just a bit over the top to be a customer…and something that could be mistaken for someone out of central casting. It’s not the fact it was a ‘hat’.
Butchart Gardens? More like Butthurt Gardens, amirite?
