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.
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.
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
First of all, the word “but” doesn’t negate the statement in the first half of the sentence.
