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.
It’s ‘unjustifiable’. So why link that to assuming the victim was obfuscating the truth? In the same sentence, you are absolving the victim of blame while also claiming that they lied.
Because I was prefacing my statement in an attempt to ward off misunderstandings about whose side I was on. I underestimated the degree to which people lack a sense of nuance apparently, though
You’re right, just ignore them.
What ‘nuance’ is there about speculating that two assaulted gay people were kissing harder than they described?
As you yourself say, it does not have any bearing on the violence done to them being acceptable. So why link those two things together with a comma but?
That it’s possible it’s less to do with them being gay and more to do with them potentially making out heavily and making the workers uncomfortable, which is possible if they were a straight couple too instead.
Not condoning the violence in the slightest
this assumes the couple was lying in their account, for which there is no evidence. this is little more than victim-blaming, and using a falsehood to justify bigotry and violence.
I don’t know what happened, I just understand what the person’s point was in bringing it up and can also understand that they’re not condoning or justifying the violence that occurred at all.
the point was, very obviously, to use a lie about the victims to justify the bigotry and violence against them-- over and over, and that’s exactly what they’ve done.
and you’re defending using a lie to justify the bigotry and violence they faced.
That’s absolutely not at all what they were saying, idk if you’re reading a different comment or something.
i’m not to blame for the terrible things they said and you endorsed-- and the evidence for it is here for all to see (and downvote, and mods to remove)
don’t say such despicable things if you can’t face the consequences.
You get attacked on your commute.
I say: “It’s terrible you were dragged out of your car and hit, that’s not acceptable!”
I then add: “You probably were driving badly, though, which pissed people off.”
The second sentence modified the first, yes?
Yeah it does of course, however wanting to know the facts of the situation isn’t the same as making an excuse for the behavior exhibited.