Christian Dingus, 28, was with his partner when, he says, employees told the couple not to kiss inside, and the argument escalated outside.

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.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    9·
    4 months ago

    Please put more words in my mouth. Blatantly misquote me and misconstrue my basic English to mean whatever you want it to mean. Strawman me, daddy!

    • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      10·
      4 months ago

      That’s interesting. You get to claim that a gay person was lying about kissing their boyfriend, but when you feel that assumptions are being made about you, you flip out. Do you often find that you treat people in ways that you don’t accept for yourself to be treated?

       

      You said: “There is never a reason for either party to escalate a verbal disagreement to a physical one, but…”

      To me, that reads as, “It’s not OK. Except…”

      Maybe you should have phrased it differently, e.g.:

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

      I think that, maybe, the kissing described was more heavy and sexual in nature than they described. This does not mean they deserved to be attacked.

      Actually, I’m going to edit my post, because me supposing they were kissing extra hard has no bearing on the violence done against them. I said the violence was wrong, so saying ‘but they might have been kissing offensively hard’ is stupid. It doesn’t matter. I said it didn’t matter, and then I said it like I did matter. I’m going to remove that part, because it’s stupid, and makes me look suspicious.

       

       

      I ask again:

      It’s not okay to spread the idea that strangers store their own sexual secretions in jars. Except, in your case…

      Imagine that I finished that sentence by giving spurious reasons as to why I think it’s okay to spread a made up idea like that. Would you say ‘fair enough’ in response? Is it fair that I make you an exception, without evidence?