420
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

There is never a reason for either party to escalate a verbal disagreement to a physical one, but I would be very shocked if the PDA were as innocent as they imply it was for someone to walk out from behind the counter and calmly ask them to knock it off. There are always two sides to every altercation, and even his description, "kind of briefly - we began to kiss" sounds like downplaying the degree of the kissing going on. It sounds like there was a good chance that it was a pretty excessive makeout session. They really seem to want to make it a homophobia thing, and maybe it was... whether the employees' line for excessive would have been the same for a straight couple as for this gay one, I don't know. But I wouldn't be shocked if the request was at least arguably reasonable for a business that doesn't need people sucking face at the counter. Or maybe I'm wrong and the entire restaurant staff in left-leaning Washington DC are just a bunch of homophobes. Idk.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

You think a lot about that gay kissing don't you now.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Lol. Dude, I'm a full on socialist pro-choice pro-LGBT rights progressive. Feel free to check my post history. I couldnt give a fuck if two dudes are kissing. I'm not excusing the violence towards these guys. It's not OK. There is a point, though, where macking on one another in public becomes a spectacle, gay, straight, pan or whatever. It is not homophobia for a business owner to ask you to cut it out if you are being excessive in front of other guests just because you are gay. I've seen straight couples make asses out of themselves in public too. It's dumb. Asking that to stop in your restaurant is OK. What happened after is absolutely not. Is that clearer to you?

[-] SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network 37 points 2 months ago

And then one of the men, pretty forcefully, like, pushed me out of the way on my shoulder,” Dingus said. “And then, you know, next thing I know, that kind of just, I think, sparked the rest of them. ... They all just kind of started attacking me at that point, dragging me back through the floor and continuously punching me in my head.”

They essentially gang assaulted Mr. Dingus, and you believe it's only because of some PDA? I highly doubt it, and believe fully that this is a case of homophobia. And almost certainly a hate crime too.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I assumed it happened because of the "heated verbal argument" he said his partner started. Words get exchange, tempers rise and fists come out. Again, I said I may be wrong. Maybe they were all homophobes that wanted to get a few licks in on some gay guys. Or maybe they were all assholes and turned a request into an argument into a fist fight. I don't know. I just think his retelling of the story seems suggest there was more to it.

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

YOU are the only one suggesting there's more to it, and you're doing it so you can side with the bigots/attackers while indirectly calling the victims liars.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I'm not. But whatever you say

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

"nuh-uh!" is rarely a successful debate tactic.

[-] Samvega 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm not.

There's no point lying, your posts are visible. You said:

There is never a reason for either party to escalate a verbal disagreement to a physical one, but...

You were talking in bad faith from the very first sentence. An absolute 'never' to modifying it into a conditional, based on you imagining that two gay people justified a Big Mad Moment because they kissed too hard.

There is never a reason to beat up a couple as they wait for their fast food, no matter how hard they kiss. There is no but. That was a complete sentence. Them being gay doesn't change that in the slightest.

 

Lol. Dude, I'm a full on socialist pro-choice pro-LGBT rights progressive.

Usually better to show that than say it.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Read my other reply to you regarding the misinterpretation of the word "but". As for justifying the "big mad moment", I said that calmly asking them to stop the PDA may have been justified. The employee did not get angry at them when asking them to stop by the own retelling of the victim here. I did not say that the anger and violence that followed were justified. I literally said the opposite. And you can think whatever of my progressivism. Living in a reality where sometimes people downplay their actions to come off better in a store is apparently antithetical to progressivism to you, but not to me. The guy still has rights, dignity and the freedom to express himself and love whomever he wants even if he was too embarrassed to admit he was sucking face a bit too intensely for a business to be happy with.

[-] SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network 14 points 2 months ago

Multiple employees beat up a gay man after he had some PDA with his partner. No matter how you look at it the optics are horrible. Short of Mr. Dingus having a weapon or shouting slurs or something like that: there's no justification for the employees to beat and attack him.

I feel like you're jumping through several hoops to put the blame back on the person who was beaten by multiple people.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I've said multiple times that the violence was not okay and there was no excuse for it. No matter how much pda happened. I have also said multiple times that they are absolutely not to blame for the violence assuming neither threw the first punch. I only suggested that he might have downplayed a single detail in his retelling about what caused the employee to talk to them in the first place.

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

I’ve said multiple times that the violence was not okay and there was no excuse for it.

yet you're bending over backwards to make excuses for it

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I really havent. Suggesting that the restaurant may have been justified I asking them to stop what they were doing is not excusing the violence even a little and it's ridiculous for you to conflate the two things

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

I really havent. Suggesting that the restaurant may have been justified I asking them to stop what they were doing is not excusing the violence

when you invent excuses for bigoted violence that's what you're doing, especially if you have to completely invent the accusation that the victims were liars and, therefore, deserved it.

THAT is what you keep doing, and your denials just make it more obvious how much trouble with the truth when you deny the things you've already said here for everyone to see.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Except even if I'm 100 percent right, that still excuses nothing

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Except even if I’m 100 percent right

according to what evidence that you didn't make up yourself?

that still excuses nothing

except you're still here trying to excuse iit.

[-] Samvega 11 points 2 months ago

've said multiple times that the violence was not okay and there was no excuse for it. No matter how much pda happened. I have also said multiple times that they are absolutely not to blame for the violence assuming neither threw the first punch.

Good.

I only suggested that he might have downplayed a single detail...

You just can't stop adding to absolute 'never' and 'not' with additional bullshit.

Let's go back to your first post, which started:

There is never a reason for either party to escalate a verbal disagreement to a physical one, but I would be very shocked if the PDA were as innocent as they imply it...

You said the victims weren't 'as innocent'. You're victim blaming. You can't cover that up by starting with 'not okay', 'no excuse', and 'not to blame'. You consistently follow on with words that EXPLICITLY MEAN "BUT they are not innocent and have some blame".

You talk like a politician. I can imagine you being on TV saying: "I respect childless women, however, they should vote like their father says".

Stop equivocating. If the violence was wrong, it was wrong. That's it.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

You're the kind of person that listens to a broken woman describe being the victim of domestic violence and ask "but what did you do to set him off?"

The only thing evident about you and your line of thinking is resentment.

load more comments (42 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
load more comments (147 replies)
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
420 points (100.0% liked)

News

23268 readers
2317 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS