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.

  • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    255·
    3 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
      1227·
      3 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        196·
        3 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
          812·
          3 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

            • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
              314·
              3 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.

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            132·
            3 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
              312·
              3 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.