If one person is offended by something another person does and asks them to stop doing it but the second person says they are offended by the first person's attempt to control them is the second person's offense as legitimate as the first person's?

I have been thinking about this intermittently for over a year as it happened to me at work with a former coworker- she interrupted a conversation I was having to ask that I stop swearing (she was of the Muslim faith and very conservative) as it offended her. I was mixed on this as on the one hand it's not a big deal to try and reign it in a bit if it makes her more comfortable but on the other hand now I have someone trying to control my language- even when I am talking to someone else.

I ruminated on this for a while and then I asked her "If my swearing offends you it is right for me to stop it, yes?" She agreed and then I asked her "Okay now say I am offended at your attempt to control my speech- should you now respect my offense and stop trying to control what I say?" Her answer, which pops into my mind every once in a while and gets me thinking about this again was.....interesting. She simply said "No, it's not the same thing."

Hmmmm......

So my brothers I ask you: Is all offense equal or are there levels of offense? A secondary question I guess would be is being offended the fault of a third party or a function of your own psychology and therefore cannot be pinned on someone else?

For me I like this philosophy on being offended "offended? so what?" To me it means nothing and I hate that people try to control other people due to a feeling they have. That being said I live in the world and concessions need to be made to maintain some sort of civility. Personally though, I don't think I ever really get "offended" even in the story above I wasn't really offended. More like curious about the whole thing.