It seems like you're being downvoted pretty heavily. Part of it probably has to do with the views you're expressing, but I think a big part of it is the manner in which you are expressing those views. The former is probably never going to change for you, but the latter could always be changed.

> A creepshot by definition is a sexualized photograph, this doesn't count.

I think your argument here is being overly dismissive. Sure in the most common usage of the term, it's not a creepshot. But I still think many would agree that it's creepy, as a matter of social custom, to take pictures of random people. It never bodes well for an argument when it's focused on the semantics of a single term.

> Nothing wrong with this.

You don't provide a justification for this. Just a matter-of-fact statement (which is very off-putting).

> And no, she was under no obligation to explain anything to them

I agree she was not under any obligation to explain anything to them. But again, I think this argument is overly technical. Might it have been a good idea to simply ask them to apologize, and then leave it at that? I don't think anyone should instantly jump for the nuclear option (of getting people kicked out).

> which is a pretty gross thing to say and is offensive to folks with mental disability.

I think you're getting downvoted here for throwing out what appears to be a red herring (quibbling over a minor detail and in general being overly focused on semantics).

> The OP did not fire this individual nor escort them out of the room

I agree with you here, but then again, keep this in mind: the Department of Justice did not intend for Aaron Swartz to kill himself. Yet that was the consequence of their actions. I apologize if anyone thinks this example is too extreme.

I also feel like it's a leap to say that it is actually the company that is being overly PC. It's more likely they fired him because of the negative media attention.