Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

katydid

Deleted User wrote: »

Source: Independent.ie

In all honesty, this would piss me off too; if people feel uncomfortable with PDA and homosexuality, then that is their own issue and shouldn't inflict their own misgivings on others.

I wouldn't leave if asked to in those circumstances, if they are as described.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

You get to pass judgement on this couple, they weren't getting married or pole dancing with each other in a public restaurant.

They were looking, fcking looking at each other and holding hands.

Your approval or tacit acceptance is not required nor solicited. Boo hoo for you if you aren't OK with gays. Tough, the world has moved on the legislation reflects that.

The restaurant is legally required to treat all the patrons the same, at least not to discriminate against them.

Do you believe everything you read in the papers? If so you are very naïve. You say they were "fcking" looking at each other. Personally I don't believe it.

Robsweezie

the restaurant is lucky they haven't yet been named, because you know any and all of their social media pages will be blasted with 1 star reviews from people who've never set foot in the building.

seachto7

Robsweezie wrote:

all of their social media pages will be blasted with 1 star reviews from people who've never set foot in the building.

From gay American vegans?

_Kaiser_

nokia69 wrote: »

unless they name the restaurant then I will have to assume that the story is made up

Even IF it is true, until/unless the Restaurant gets the opportunity to put their side of events across, naming them could have a disastrous effect on their business - especially given that most posters seem to think there's more to it.

Such is the way of the Internet SJW - you can see it on this thread where those who aren't fully on-board with the outrage are being accused of homophobia and such.

In reality, as others have said, regardless of the outcome of the SSM referendum (which has no actual relevance to this story either), the reality is that there are a significant number of people who are still uncomfortable with it AND THAT'S THEIR RIGHT, so long as it doesn't affect others.

The PC Thought Police that's all over stories like this really needs to learn the irony of their shaming/accusations/outrage against anyone who isn't "on-message" but (worse again! :rolleyes:) isn't vocally in support of the message.

As I posted earlier, if you are out in a public setting like a restaurant there is a certain standard of behaviour you should adhere to (regardless of your gender, relationship status or sexuality). That's not discrimination or phobic... it's respect and courtesy for those around you.

RedemptionZ

I have gay family members and voted yes in the marriage referendum, but there are a few posters in this thread who have absolutely no proof this happened yet are defending the legitimacy of the story to no end. I get it, there's still discrimination against gay people, but there's literally no way to prove it actually happened. Unnamed couple, unnamed restaurant. No way to get the restaurants side of the story, or question the couple for any more details. Forgive me if I have doubts about whether it's not true. "When I was 18, I got kicked out of a club for dancing weirdly". In reality I was being an absolute drunk goon and deserved to get kicked out. I was angry about getting kicked out and told my mates that it was all the bouncers having a problem with me and I was practically sober. Now unlucky for me people weren't so willing to believe my story! But I see this as similar, if this actually happened and they're angry enough to write a letter why don't they name and shame?

After the absolute disgrace that was the termination of Sir Tim Hunt's employment from the Twitter and tumblr mob, I've really started to notice how quickly people are to assume guilt and believe what they read.

end of the road

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Is this not another one of them SJW's unite to get a business closed down on something that may or may not have actually happened. I'm sure it's going around FB at the moment and the Business may have been named.

If it actually happened fair enough. But should we wait before jumping on the High horses ?

hardly as sjws don't exist

Jimlh86

Sounds like a budding wannabe journalist trying to invent a sensationalist story!? Highly unlikely that this exact course of events happened.

oppenheimer1

No names, no sources, no credibility.

Samaris

I'm pretty ambivilent about this story. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But given two linked stories (yeah, I went and researched it to see if anything more had come up) were "Someone’s launched a (very) last minute challenge against same-sex marriage" and "A woman is trying to sue all homosexuals on behalf of God", the whole thing wouldn't surprise me.

If it didn't happen, no name, no shame, no worries. But taking it at face value, yeah, it should be noticed.

One eyed Jack

I'm reminded of the story that was in the media about two years ago, the two lads being asked to leave a SPAR shop in Dublin because they were kissing or something like that anyway. The whole thing got legs because they happened to be a gay couple, but who has actually ever seen a straight couple doing the same thing in a SPAR shop, or any shop?

I certainly can't think of any, but the whole thing was blown completely out of proportion, just like the incident here where there's not even so much as a named restaurant on social media, and yet this letter found it's way to GCN a week after the incident allegedly happened, and left the author in such a state that they now think homophobia is rampant in Ireland on the basis of this one incident?

Whoever wrote that crap should seriously consider getting a sense of perspective rather than over-dramatising being asked to leave a restaurant for alleged PDA, and the alleged customers reaction where she said "disgusting" as they were leaving? That's one person, hardly representative of Irish society, just like I wouldn't say the author of that letter was representative of anyone I know who is either lesbian, bisexual or gay.

Chimichangas

Is it the restaurant or the other diners that complained that is the problem??
In the bit I see the other diners view s were presented to the gay couple. Were they asked to leave after that?
Personally I would want to know who complained, and what that complaint was based on...

TheLastMohican

In old fashioned parlance - pics or GTFO!

B.A._Baracus

Did it really happen tho?
If it did... This is 2015. No way in hell at least one person wouldn't jump out of their seat and say why the restaurant were throwing out a gay couple.

The story is either lies or something else happened that isn't being mentioned.

fed up sick and tired

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

No one does.

Where does your right not to see something which is perfectly legal stop and where does the right for two people to commit a perfectly legal act in a public restaurant start?

Holding hands and eye gazing is legal everywhere. A straight couple could do it in church FFS!

Framing it in terms of legality only serves to highlight the problem with the behaviour. Which is to say that there are far too many self-absorbed attention-seeking bores who insist on doing what they want just because they can. Probably so much the better if they can irritate others in doing so.

Legality ought to be, if not irrelevant, then at least only one of a number of considerations.

It's about awareness, and class. (Holding hands + eye gazing) in church is really, really lacking in taste irrespective of legality. When did it become necessary to say that ?

Similarly it lacks awareness, depending on the dining establishment, for couples to be carrying on like attention-seeking idiots. Other people are in the restaurant and it isn't really about what they are forced to look at or otherwise. It is about recognising their right to enjoy a certain level of decorum and ambience, for which they are paying dearly.

Think the 'story' is BS though.


.

Annasopra

dissed doc wrote: »

we do not have the full story. lewd behaviour in a Restaurant might make anyone else gay or straight uncomfortable,and it is subjective. but, others were offended by the action.

they were not removed for being gay.


"couple removed for unknow reason after complaints from other patrons" is the Story. no need to pullout the Gay Privelege Bonuscard.

We don't have the full story but apparently you know exactly what happened. Hilarious.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't give a damn what two people get up to in their own time, but I don't have to tolerate PDA of any sort if I don't want to, sweetheart.

That's your problem really. I mean I actually do think that you do have a problem if you can't tolerate 2 people nearby you holding hands.

Mongfinder General

markc2951 wrote: »

Right to refuse admission? Me personally I would leave an establishment if I saw two gay men mauling each other

Bit of an over reaction. It's not like they're getting up on each other.

Annasopra

Azalea wrote: »

Presume she refused to serve a gay couple? While I wholeheartedly disagree with her, a person's private opinion doesn't make them sackable.

Actually if she uses that opinion to discriminate it would

frostyjacks

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually if she uses that opinion to discriminate it would

I'm assuming she asked another waitress to serve them. She shouldn't have been sacked for holding an opinion that her employer disagrees with. May as well sack someone for their taste in music.

markc2951

colossus-x wrote:

Au revoir monsieur

Slan abhaile

_Kaiser_

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm assuming she asked another waitress to serve them. She shouldn't have been sacked for holding an opinion that her employer disagrees with. May as well sack someone for their taste in music.

Yup, this is the point I made last night...

It's not enough that SSM is legal (and rightly so I might add!), but everyone needs to be vocal about their support for it - because otherwise you're just homophobic (apparently!)

I'm again reminded of the scene in the Simpsons where the gay pride parade is on and the chants of "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" to which Lisa (Miss politically-correct/progressive herself!) responds with "we ARE used to it!". The subsequent retort of "spoilsport!" illustrates my point above perfectly actually.

As we're reminded several times in this thread, this is 2015 and Irish society as a whole has moved on from homophobia, sexism, racism and other such loaded terms. While cases of the above DO still happen, I find it very hard to believe that the incident in the article really happened as described.

Even IF there was another diner uncomfortable with the couple in question holding hands, they'd be far more likely to tut tut, comment to their companion or scowl than call attention to it in a busy restaurant and have to "justify" their views in that environment - in other words, they'd know full well that they'd be ignored/commented on themselves.

So either a lot more was happening at the couple's table than we've been told, or this story is a fiction designed to whip up the SJW types - which it's been successful at with accusions of homophobia, claims of legal rights, and calls for the restaurant to be named and shamed - without giving them the similar opportunity to air their side of events first!

Annasopra

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm assuming she asked another waitress to serve them. She shouldn't have been sacked for holding an opinion that her employer disagrees with. May as well sack someone for their taste in music.

If the end result is that a result is that a customer doesnt get served purely on the basis of his/her sexuality then yes she should.

CaoimheSquee

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Somehow I feel there's something more to it. Asked to leave because they were just holding hands? In a city center restaurant? And customers called them 'disgusting' as they walked out in shame? It seems highly dramatic. Homer Simpson and the Babysitter springs to mind.

Maybe not though.
I was in a well known Dublin pub during the summer and watched two girls be asked to leave because people (not sure whether staff or customers) were not comfortable with their displays of affection.
I was pretty disappointed by the whole affair. The girls were quite tactile but not to the point of full on snogging or even kissing. They were right in my eye view so I saw it all but they were actually sitting in a quite an inconspicuous area.
I haven't gone back there since; whole thing was rather uncomfortable, having to watch them gather their things quite upset when up until then there had been no issue at all.

_Kaiser_

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If the end result is that a result is that a customer doesnt get served purely on the basis of his/her sexuality then yes she should.

I think the point is that in a setting like a restaurant, the customer's sexuality (or indeed that of the staff or other patrons) shouldn't EVER be a concern.. because there should be nothing to object to - and that applies equally to hetero couples as well. It's a restaurant - you go in, keep the noise down, be polite and enjoy your meal.. it's common courtesy and respect for others around you.

People are allowed hold different views an opinions - regardless of the latest consensus. So long as those opinions are not unduly influencing/affecting others then they have just as much right to them as anyone else.

I think most people here agree that there was more going on that simple hand-holding and gazing BECAUSE people know that that IS nothing to get upset about (IF this incident actually happened at all of course!) There has to be more to this story than was being told, but it's ironic how defensive and accusatory some posters are getting regardless.

The Highwayman

Marriage equality does not mean I'd be comfortable watching 2 men kiss in a restaurant while I'm trying to eat. And yes it was kissing not just holding hands. I'd also be put off my food if it were a straight couple doing the same. A restaurant is not a motel.

“A waiter came to out table and told us that customers at another table were complaining about us."

Love the Freudian Typo :pac:

Kev W

The Highwayman wrote: »

Marriage equality does not mean I'd be comfortable watching 2 men kiss in a restaurant while I'm trying to eat. And yes it was kissing not just holding hands. I'd also be put off my food if it were a straight couple doing the same. A restaurant is not a motel.

Where are you getting your information from? The OP says it was just holding hands.

Baron Kurtz

He was probably pulling the plum off him under the table:)

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That's your problem really. I mean I actually do think that you do have a problem if you can't tolerate 2 people nearby you holding hands.

Joey I'll freely admit that yes, it is my problem that I find PDA in certain circumstances cringeworthy. I wouldn't complain to management though if it was just two people holding hands or something like is being reported in that letter. It would take quite a bit more than that before I'd say "ahh here, I'm trying to enjoy my dinner here ffs!". I think most people wouldn't have an issue with people holding hands or whatever, and it would take a lot more than that before someone would claim someone was being completely inappropriate and spoiling their enjoyment of their dinner, something they are entitled to do. If someone felt I was being inappropriate in a restaurant, then I would expect they should be able to make a complaint too.

I'm far from a prude, we just have different standards for what we consider socially appropriate behaviour in public is all.