this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
421 points (97.3% liked)

News

23310 readers
5390 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
 

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
[–] SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Multiple employees beat up a gay man after he had some PDA with his partner. No matter how you look at it the optics are horrible. Short of Mr. Dingus having a weapon or shouting slurs or something like that: there's no justification for the employees to beat and attack him.

I feel like you're jumping through several hoops to put the blame back on the person who was beaten by multiple people.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Trying to understand codemonkey, I believe they agrees there's no justification. What they mean is that once a verbal fight started, tempers could have flared, and violence was inevitable, but not acceptable.

That said, I agree the optics are very bad, and more importantly, society should start from the default position of first assessing if a hate crime happened.

First thing should be "were these folks targeted based on their orientation?"

After that is thoroughly vetted, only then can it be considered "did a bunch of folks get heated in a shake shack after the customers were firmly but non discriminatorily told to knock it off?"

Edit if a reader thinks I took a side other than "hate crime bad, determine hate crime FIRST" with this comment you really need to think again.

[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

First thing should be "were these folks targeted based on their orientation?"

Problem is, you can never make that determination, bigots will hide their bigotry (at least in a place where bigotry is not socially acceptable, which I think DC qualifies... Oklahoma for example would be different) so unless you have some other indication, or prior knowledge of the person involved, the outward appearance of (asking couple to tone it down because omg gay people) and (asking couple to tone it down because heavy PDA makes some people uncomfortable regardless of the sexes involved) is the same.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Asking anyone, of any orientation or partner, to tone down PDA in a private business property is not a hate crime.

Like, unless you say it specifically, you are addressing the PDA.

BAD: "quit being gay in here"

GOOD: "take the PDA outside, that's not appropriate in here"

The law would care about every detail of the interaction, starting from the initial comments.

Scenario 1:

  • human is told to quit the PDA
  • they get in a verbal argument
  • the human being loses the fight
  • bonus, the employees wail on them extra.

Not a hate crime. (But crimes certainly happened)

Scenario 2:

  • gay couple is told to quit "the gay stuff" (hypothetical hate speech)
  • they get in a verbal argument
  • the gay couple loses the fight
  • bonus, the employees wail on them extra.

This seems like much more of a clear cut hate crime.

I mean like, a few human beings having a disagreement about humans stuff, which results in violence, is just normal crime.

The distinction is rooted in the origin of the dispute, and things said and intentions asking the way. It really matters to the courts.

To be clear though, I'm not trying to water down potential hate crimes. I stick to my original position that any crimes involving protected groups, must be cleared of known hate crime motivations first. But you can absolutely get in a fight with a gay person without any "hate crime" motivations.