420
submitted 4 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
[-] Samvega 45 points 4 months ago

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

You modify a 'never' with a comma and a 'but'. So, not 'never'.

PDA were as innocent as they imply it

"They kissed in a non-innocent way and I had to assault them."
Hmm, that sounds like bullshit to me.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

First of all, the word "but" doesn't negate the statement in the first half of the sentence. "I wanted ice cream, but I ate a donut instead" doesn't mean I never wanted ice cream. The but, in this case was meant to indicate that, while I am on their side in regard to the violence that occurred becuase it was unjustifiable regardless of what started the interaction, I would not be surprised to find put that he downplayed that detail and the employee may have been justified in asking them to stop. Him downplaying that detail, and/or the employee being justified in asking them to stop does not, in an way shape for form, excuse, defend, or approve the violence that followed. That was the exact reason I prefaced that statement with the fact that the physical violence wasn't acceptable here.

[-] finley@lemm.ee 26 points 4 months ago

First of all, the word “but” doesn’t negate the statement in the first half of the sentence.

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

People like big buts.

[-] Samvega 24 points 4 months ago

The but, in this case was meant to indicate that, while I am on their side in regard to the violence that occurred becuase it was unjustifiable regardless of what started the interaction, I would not be surprised to find put that he downplayed that detail...

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.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

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

[-] Samvega 19 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago

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

[-] finley@lemm.ee 18 points 4 months ago

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

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.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] finley@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago

I just understand what the person’s point was in bringing it up

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.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

That's absolutely not at all what they were saying, idk if you're reading a different comment or something.

[-] finley@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

I hope one day you see how crazy this sounds, if it's not intentional.

[-] finley@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

i've been calling out these crazy comments for hours

i'm not to blame for what others say here.

[-] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

You are to blame for your own comments, and you come across as unhinged. You act like you're some great crusader for truth, yet you make just as many accusations with just as little evidence as the person you're calling out- but they at least had the self awareness to say "I could be wrong..."

[-] Samvega 13 points 4 months ago

potentially making out heavily

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?

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

You're right, just ignore them.

this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
420 points (100.0% liked)

News

23655 readers
2199 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS