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 modify a ‘never’ with a comma and a ‘but’. So, not ‘never’.
“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.
People like big buts.
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?
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.
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.
You’re right, just ignore them.