You people are silly. There's nothing offensive in Eastern Anglicanism. It's silly but so is Western Anglicanism. Western vestments are ours too so if using Eastern vestments is offensive using Western vestments should be too.
We are not an Eastern church. We are the Catholic Church.
Good point. I thought of that myself, but what makes this different for me is the lack of continuity. For instance, in the Indian case I cited, that denomination broke away from the Orthodox Church in the 19th century in order to embrace Protestant theology, but kept the Syriac rite in a stripped down version. They didn't create something out of nothing, they just adapted what they were already doing. You can make the same argument for Anglicanism, they adapted what they were already doing (i.e., some type of Latin rite). But Byzantine rite Anglicanism? Why? What for? Unless there's some group of EO that became Anglican and wanted to maintain some form of Byzantine rite, how is it not "boutique Christianity"?
Another consideration which these "Eastern Anglicans" probably haven't thought of: Vestments aren't just fancy duds worn to add "majesty" and "beauty" to a service, nor are they worn simply to set clergy apart from the laity. Each component of vestments has a specific purpose, meaning (often more than one) and history; clergy do not simply dress themselves in them and then step out and conduct the service. Each component is put on in order, with specific prayers said for each component. Prayers are also said at the removal of each component.
Well, I'm not sure this is a fair criticism, and I'm not just saying that because I'm still disturbed by that Georgian Baptist photo.
Again, in the Indian case I cited, for all the reforming of the rites which they did, they did keep the traditional vestments, the vesting order and prayers, etc. It's not necessarily the case that these Byzantine rite Anglicans just put on a costume without knowing how to do it or what it means. They may well know enough to do some things properly, even if they do other things differently, whether that's on purpose (reforming rites to reflect their faith) or due to ignorance.
Possibly tangential quibble: according to my best recollection of the OCA rubrics class I audited, the vesting prayers are only said for the Divine Liturgy. At other services, they are simply put on without any prayer. Maybe other EO traditions differ on this. Certainly in our tradition, you always put them on with the proper prayers, whether for the Liturgy or any other service.
Speaking more generally, I agree that, as an Orthodox, it's annoying to see changes and reforms that are done inconsistently, without an understanding of the rite "from the inside", but we do well not to paint with too broad a brush. I really don't think we'll make any effective arguments without understanding where these Byzantine rite Anglicans are coming from and why they are doing what they are doing. Right now, we're just protesting because "it's ours", "we are the Church", "Orthodoxy = Eastern", and "they're doing it wrong", but that's not good enough, actually it sounds rather juvenile. As others have mentioned, nowadays anyone can do anything and buy anything to do it. The OP didn't have to ask for an opinion here, he could've done his own research and figured it out on his own, and ordered vestments, and there's nothing any of us could do to prevent it. I give him credit that he wanted our advice on "the real deal", even if our explanation of the "real deal" primarily involves our inviting him to become Orthodox.