Christian Dingus, 28, was with his partner when, he says, employees told the couple not to kiss inside, and the argument escalated outside.
A gay man accused a group of Washington, D.C., Shake Shack employees of beating him after he kissed his boyfriend inside the location while waiting for their order.
Christian Dingus, 28, was with his partner and a group of friends at a Dupont Circle location Saturday night when the incident occurred, he told NBC News. They had put in their order and were hanging around waiting for their food.
“And while we were back there — kind of briefly — we began to kiss,” Dingus said. “And at that point, a worker came out to us and said that, you know, you can’t be doing that here, can’t do that type of stuff here.”
The couple separated, Dingus said, but his partner got upset at the employee and insisted the men had done nothing wrong. Dingus’ partner was then allegedly escorted out of the restaurant, where a heated verbal argument occurred.
I didn’t say I had evidence. I said I got a feeling from the way he phrased his story. I also said I might be wrong.
“From the way you phrase your posts, I guess you might have disturbing images on your hard drive. I might be wrong.”
Would you take offence if I said that? If yes, then think about what you’re doing.
Removed by mod
You also say that this does not warrant violence. So why even make that point?
If one of my female friends is sexually harassed, and I say, “There’s no excuse for that. It doesn’t matter how you were dressed. However, I bet you were dressed provocatively,” am I being a despicable piece of shit?
I accept I’m ‘weird’, because I’m heavily autistic. But at least I don’t come across like someone who says “Of course you’re not at fault, BUT…”
Edit: checking your post history, you’ve never said anything interesting. Okay, bye.
If you female friend wore a shirt so low cut and loose that she was flashing her tits to everyone and was asked to leave the restaurant because of it, so she started arguing and then the employee attacked her… no, her clothing did not excuse the attack. It does excuse her being asked to leave. It is pretty simple how both of those things can be true. It is pretty simple that the fact that she was attacked doesn’t make the employee asking her to leave unjustified. And if she recounted the story and said “he had a problem with my shirt that might have been a little low cut”, and failed to mention she was fully flashing people, she would be lying about the facts even if those facts, again, don’t justify the violence that followed. I don’t know why this is so complicated. Reality has nuance.
I said “If one of my female friends is sexually harassed,” and you turned that into being ‘asked to leave’.
Two gay people were assaulted, and you turned that into a discussion about them being asked to leave.
Pretty weird.
They weren’t even initially asked to leave. Read his account. They were asked to stop the PDA, then the partner started to argue and then was escorted out. That is the in the victim’s own account.
Wow, now you’re using offensive tropes about women to justify your endorsement of this homophobic attack?
Can you go no lower?
Removed by mod
Really? Because I think it might be justifiable to ask a woman leave a restaurant if she is indecency exposed? Do you even know what an incel is? Pretty sure they would be on the opposite side of that argument.
Removed by mod
I was shifting the other guy’s hypothetical into a comparable situation. Jesus, automod flagged me for calling someone a weird o. How is this shit flying under the radar?
Edit: and finally the automod plays fair.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is the most pathetic question I’ve come across for some time, and I’m a teacher, and being asked pathetic questions is a daily occurrence for me.
No, because we’re typing to each other.
The guy was reply bombing me with the same accusation about 8 time an hour ago. Every time I responded to his comment, he’d repeat the same thing. Again, context matters, dude.
And that leads to you saying things that get removed by mods because…?
Because apparently taking the lord’s name in vain is a removable offense for the Lemmy automod huge eyeroll
Removed by mod
Removed
Removed by mod
yet, oddly, you keep asserting - without evidence - that the victims are liars and the bigotry and violence they received was justified.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
KryptonianCodeMonkey’s top post:
They modify a ‘never’ with a comma and a ‘but’. So, not ‘never’, clearly.
It’s odd that they’re working so hard to pretend they’re not saying what they’re actually, visibly, verifiably saying.
Thanks to everyone who questioned this so capably.