420
I remember having to get my dad out of a burger king because two dudes smooched one another. That bigot never once in his life accepted that other peoples lives were their own and none of his business.
Can I take a wild guess and also say that he's more than likely one of those people that cry "the government needs to stay out of my business!!"
I know far too many of those people... It's only bad if it's aimed at them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Glutton for punishment if you're homophobic and working at the Shake Shack in Dupont Circle.
If someone told me not to kiss my partner in their store, I would definitely start kissing 'em harder.
Also: Oh man... That guy's name is unfortunate.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
I don't care if they were fucking the burgers and shakes, the employees can ask them to leave if they're violating the business' code of conduct, and after that they can call the police if they're trespassing.
The customer can sue the shit out of them after the fact if it was discriminatory, and in D.C. that would be a slam dunk if they were just kissing.
Once the employees decided to resort to violence, they fucked up, regardless of what the customers were doing.
Either way, you weren't there, and homophobes blow up about pretty mundane things all the time, so maybe just take the gay men at their word instead of accusing them of inappropriate behavior and revealing yourself to be a homophobe yourself.
I read his words. It was his words that made me doubt. He and his partner were the victims here, for sure. But that doesn't mean that they are being honest about the preamble to the altercation. But if not fully believing a person about every single detail of their story, if not taking every single assumption that they made as gospel makes me homophobe because they happen to be gay, sure. Whatever.
But that doesn’t mean that they are being honest about the preamble to the altercation.
YOU, again, are the only one implying this, without evidence. And you're clearly doing it to excuse the bigotry and violence they faced.
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.
yet, oddly, you keep asserting - without evidence - that the victims are liars and the bigotry and violence they received was justified.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I said I got a feeling from the way he phrased his story.
"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.
load more comments
(35 replies)
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.
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.
First of all, the word “but” doesn’t negate the statement in the first half of the sentence.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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
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?
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Dude, you are wrong. Give it up. No guy has ever had the shit beat out of him by a stores employees for straight PDA. This was homophobia, and your bullshit argument just invalidates the very real struggle gay people go through every day. You are clearly not gay. So learn when you don't have the context to speak up, accept you are wrong, and sit the hell down.
No guy has ever had the shit beat out of him by a stores employees for straight PDA.
I've certainly not heard of a hetero couple being assaulted for kissing. Unless they were seen to be of different ethnic heritages or religions.
How I've seen people deal with seeing kissing they don't want to see: "Stop that and leave."
How I've seen people deal with their bigotry being triggered: escalating violence.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There are always two sides to every altercation
Yes, and in this case it was the side that violently beat a man for an event which started with their queerphobia and the other side that didn't violently beat a man for any reason.
Even a full-on gay orgy in the dead center of the restaurant is no excuse for violence.
But beyond that, people who are bothered by PDA are so fucking lame. You really want a sterile, sexless world devoid of passion and expressions of love? I think that sounds so fucking miserable
load more comments
(7 replies)
You should have stopped after the first sentence.
I don't fucking care if they were in spit-swapping makeout mode, they did nothing wrong.
load more comments
(27 replies)
Nothing good ever happens at Shake Shack.
You don't like paying $15 for a tiny burger?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
420 points (100.0% liked)
News
23376 readers
1902 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