Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

To Elland Back · 30-10-2015 2:29pm

Mmm! I'm veering more and more towards the 'this didn't happen' side of things.

Sounds as if some cheap journo is looking to see if the recent referendum has had any effect on previously held views on homosexuality by Joe Public

One eyed Jack · 30-10-2015 2:46pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Further no one knows how important a customer it was. It may be the couple in question were their for the first time and they were eating nothing but cheap salads to maintain their fabulous figures and complexions - while the people complaining were a couple - or even a large group - stuffing themselves with the house steak and wine on a weekly basis while tipping highly - that is one of the restaurant owners regular and large sources of income.

The issue of course is we simply do not know. We have no details here - and as we see from people like Highwayman people are happy to invent their own as they go along too.

I - like many - am strongly erring on the side of simply dismissing the whole story as entirely made up. I have no evidence it happened - so I do not believe it happened. But I see nothing at all to declare the scenario unlikely.

I don't know how to address the rest of what you wrote there tax, being honest with you, but I think you bring up a very good point there alright. It's certainly a more plausible scenario to suggest that if someone was paying more for their meal than a pair of meat dodgers (yes, I admit, I do judge vegetarians in a dismissive way, but I wouldn't threaten on social media to shoot them for it, unlike that particular restaurant manager), then it's quite likely they would be asked to leave if they were only taking up a space and ordering the cheapest vegetarian option on the menu.

When I worked in Supermacs, I regularly ejected large groups of teenagers who were all crowded around a table with a punnet of regular chips between ten of them. They were simply spoiling the experience of other diners with their behaviour, and they were only taking up seats while there were customers with trays full of food waiting for tables to become free.

Again though, the ejected customer in the case in the OP seems to want to claim that management asked them to leave because they were a gay couple holding hands at their table. If there was no mention of the fact that they were gay, would we still assume they were ejected for holding hands at their table?

It's because the author of the letter makes a point of the fact that they are gay is the reason they assume they were ejected from the restaurant. Perhaps there was more to their behaviour or their attitude that the author misses because they're defaulting to assuming they were ejected from the restaurant because they are gay?

What's missing here is a whole lot of context, before we start assuming that homophobia was the motivation for them being asked to leave the restaurant. You can't have missed it in the thread that some people are very quick to assume homophobia is the motivation behind some people calling shenanigans on this story?

It's a very easy conclusion to jump to, especially if a person has insecurity issues about a particular issue pertaining to them, such as for example if a person is gay and they themselves have issues with their own sexuality, they may be inclined to thinking that if anyone slights them in any way, it must be, because they're gay, and that person must be a homophobe, in spite of the fact that it may simply be because that person doesn't have much time for cheapskate meat dodgers!

jobbridge4life · 30-10-2015 2:52pm

I think it is really important to point out that the original letter never says they were 'ejected' or even that they were 'asked to leave'. The manager suggested it and forgoing of the charge. Assuming this much is true that reads to me like a a manager trying to defuse the situation albeit it in a clumsy less than perfect manner.

Alot of people have talked about 'outrage' and SJWs but if you read the actual letter there is no tone of outrage, just dejection and disappointment.

One eyed Jack · 30-10-2015 3:08pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I think it is really important to point out that the original letter never says they were 'ejected' or even that they were 'asked to leave'. The manager suggested it and forgoing of the charge. Assuming this much is true that reads to me like a a manager trying to defuse the situation albeit it in a clumsy less than perfect manner.

Alot of people have talked about 'outrage' and SJWs but if you read the actual letter there is no tone of outrage, just dejection and disappointment.

You don't figure this is just a tad much?

The man revealed that the incident has shattered his perception of Ireland following May’s referendum in which it became the first country in the world to legislate for gay marriage by popular vote.

“This is not the indication, on any level, of acceptance or even tolerance. The whole experience has really shaken the foundations of what I had come to believe post-referendum about my country,” he wrote.

It's also interesting to note that the author mentions one woman who remarked "disgusting", as the author and his boyfriend were leaving the restaurant, and I'm wondering, because of the way he was feeling at that moment, he suggests that she must have made the complaint, when her comment could well be referring to the way in which the situation was handled by management, or indeed it could be referring to the author of the letter and the way they argued with the management over being asked to refrain from being so affectionate in front of other customers?

The fact that they are gay is probably the least relevant factor in that whole story IMO.

jobbridge4life · 30-10-2015 3:20pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don't figure this is just a tad much?

Personally yes. Again assuming everything recorded in the letter is fully true then I think that reaction is over the top. Crime happens every day across the country and Ireland is not a nation of thieves and brigands. So if this was a homophobic incidence it certainly doesn't prove that Ireland is not a tolerant nation.

I can understand the persons reaction though at the same time. If it happened as it supposedly did I'd feel very taken aback as I do everytime some crap gets shouted at me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's also interesting to note that the author mentions one woman who remarked "disgusting", as the author and his boyfriend were leaving the restaurant, and I'm wondering, because of the way he was feeling at that moment, he suggests that she must have made the complaint, when her comment could well be referring to the way in which the situation was handled by management, or indeed it could be referring to the author of the letter and the way they argued with the management over being asked to refrain from being so affectionate in front of other customers?

The above is quite possible but again we weren't there so we can't know.

tayto lover · 30-10-2015 3:22pm

The title should read -

"if a gay couple were humiliated and asked to leave a restaurant".

We don't know if this happened for sure.

30-10-2015 3:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know how to address the rest of what you wrote there tax, being honest with you

I would say the best way to address it is to acknowledge that what I said was true. That one has the right to complain and have ones complaint heard - about something as petty as people holding hands in a restaurant in the same way they do ALL OVER the rest of public society - but that you should have nearly ZERO expectation to have the complaint pandered to or accommodated - due to the fact the people in question are doing nothing wrong - and the problems and issues lie with the person complaining - not with the ones they are complaining about.

I would also say one could also address it by acknowledging the difference between PDA and PDS - which your chosen analogy managed not to - and that there are no restaurants maintaining any such standards against PDA - let alone one that customers specifically go to pay for - despite you claiming multiple times to the contrary without naming a single example restaurant let alone a short list.

That would be two good places to start in my opinion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but I think you bring up a very good point there alright. It's certainly a more plausible scenario to suggest that if someone was paying more for their meal than a pair of meat dodgers then it's quite likely they would be asked to leave if they were only taking up a space and ordering the cheapest vegetarian option on the menu.

That is not the point I brought up however nor did I suggest that scenario. Red Herring is not on the menu here. I did not suggest anything of the sort that they were asked to leave because they were taking up space ordering the cheapest option. If a person does not want customers to purchase a product - they should not offer the product.

My suggestion was it is possible that the complaining customer - likely and possibly bigoted against homosexuals - had some imbalance of power in their favor due to being a regular or important customer of some sort.

Or it may be likely there was no complaint - that the owner themselves had an issue - and merely invented the complaint to express it.

I could go on imagining scenarios all day - but suffice to say my point is that I see no reason to think it unlikely at all - let alone as unlikely as you are making it out to be in your shift from defending the complaint in general - to discussing the likelihood it happened at all.

As you say - we are missing a whole load of data and context here - and so most people getting uppity about the event are likely bringing a lot of their own assumptions to the table (so to speak).

So all I can do is comment on the general TYPE of event the OP describes - rather than any specific one - any my general comment as I said is that there is a vast difference between PDA and PDS - and while one might whine they have the right to complain about PDA and have the complaint heard - they should do so with little expectation of deserving ANY accommodation for their complaint other than being politely helped find the exit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's missing here is a whole lot of context, before we start assuming that homophobia was the motivation for them being asked to leave the restaurant.

I don't. It likely was - but my point stands regardless as I am commenting on PDA as a whole - regardless of the sex or sexuality of those engaged in it. IF this event did happen I warrant the probability is high it was sexuality motivated - but no such assumption is important to the general point I make about it. I fear therefore you are now erring towards talking past the post you are replying to - rather than addressing anything in it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can't have missed it in the thread that some people are very quick to assume homophobia is the motivation behind some people calling shenanigans on this story?

I can only suggest you take it up with them then as this has nothing to do with my post or anything in it - very little of which you have chosen to actually reply to and I am trying to limit my reply to you - to things that were relevant to my original post - without following the array of tangents you have sprung off the side of it.

Isaiah · 30-10-2015 3:50pm

I don't for one second believe this happened. What happened to journalism? Now all it takes is an accusation, trial by twitter and next of all your life and business is ruined and you've been branded a homophobe.

The perpetually outraged and offended need to get a life. You are only 1 step away from being the modern equivalent of the plebs who dragged women off and burned them at the stake for witchcraft.

The liberal left lynch mob have a hypocritical, contradictory and backwards sense of justice. Who would have thought that the advent of the internet age would spread ignorance? I always thought that it would do the opposite!

One eyed Jack · 30-10-2015 4:06pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would say the best way to address it is to acknowledge that what I said was true. That one has the right to complain and have ones complaint heard - about something as petty as people holding hands in a restaurant in the same way they do ALL OVER the rest of public society - but that you should have nearly ZERO expectation to have the complaint pandered to or accommodated - due to the fact the people in question are doing nothing wrong - and the problems and issues lie with the person complaining - not with the ones they are complaining about.

If I make a complaint, I do expect, and I have every right to expect that my complaint is taken seriously. Otherwise I would be given to thinking there's no point in me complaining because it's likely nothing would be done about it.

I would also say one could also address it by acknowledging the difference between PDA and PDS - which your chosen analogy managed not to - and that there are no restaurants maintaining any such standards against PDA - let alone one that customers specifically go to pay for - despite you claiming multiple times to the contrary without naming a single example restaurant let alone a short list.

That would be two good places to start in my opinion

One man's PDA is another man's PDS. I've already stated that I have an issue with PDA, and the scenario I presented was to gauge just what other people consider PDA, or socially acceptable behaviour in public. You read far too much into it and I wasn't sure how I was going to be able to pull you back from that, and that's why I wasn't sure what to say to you, because I agree with the general points you made, but I'm not willing to acknowledge that everything you said is true. It may be true for you, by your standards, but it isn't true for me, by my standards, hence why I see it as my right to complain about other people's behaviour I find unacceptable, and I expect that complaint to be taken seriously.

That is not the point I brought up however nor did I suggest that scenario. Red Herring is not on the menu here. I did not suggest anything of the sort that they were asked to leave because they were taking up space ordering the cheapest option. If a person does not want customers to purchase a product - they should not offer the product.

My suggestion was it is possible that the complaining customer - likely and possibly bigoted against homosexuals - had some imbalance of power in their favor due to being a regular or important customer of some sort.

Why do you assume the complaining customer was likely and possibly bigoted against homosexuals? Couldn't it be just as likely that like myself, they are not bigoted against homosexuals, they just don't like to witness other people's PDA when they're dining out?

Or it may be likely there was no complaint - that the owner themselves had an issue - and merely invented the complaint to express it.

I could go on imagining scenarios all day - but suffice to say my point is that I see no reason to think it unlikely at all - let alone as unlikely as you are making it out to be in your shift from defending the complaint in general - to discussing the likelihood it happened at all.

As you say - we are missing a whole load of data and context here - and so most people getting uppity about the event are likely bringing a lot of their own assumptions to the table (so to speak).

Now that much at least, we can definitely agree on.

So all I can do is comment on the general TYPE of event the OP describes - rather than any specific one - any my general comment as I said is that there is a vast difference between PDA and PDS - and while one might whine they have the right to complain about PDA and have the complaint heard - they should do so with little expectation of deserving ANY accommodation for their complaint other than being politely helped find the exit.

The thing about that kind of thinking is that it implies that nobody should have to be considerate of other people or how their behaviour may make other people feel uncomfortable, and that's an attitude that's not likely to work very well in their favour, because then they lose the right to expect that their complaint should be taken seriously when they whine that their perceived right to PDA is being infringed upon!

I don't. It likely was - but my point stands regardless as I am commenting on PDA as a whole - regardless of the sex or sexuality of those engaged in it. IF this event did happen I warrant the probability is high it was sexuality motivated - but no such assumption is important to the general point I make about it. I fear therefore you are now erring towards talking past the post you are replying to - rather than addressing anything in it.

Possibly we are talking about two different things, because you're putting forward the motivation for the objection to PDA in this case being motivated by homophobia, and I'm talking about an objection to PDA in general, or as you say, as a whole. There is no reason IMO to assume the complaint was motivated by homophobia, and every reason to assume it was motivated by a distaste for PDA in general.

I can only suggest you take it up with them then as this has nothing to do with my post or anything in it - very little of which you have chosen to actually reply to and I am trying to limit my reply to you - to things that were relevant to my original post - without following the array of tangents you have sprung off the side of it.

Don't limit yourself on my account, I certainly don't limit myself on your account, but I'm now wondering do you expect me to take your points seriously, or do you hold yourself to your own standards that you should have no expectation that I should take your points seriously?

If that's the case, any further discussion seems futile, would you think?

Sunflower 27 · 30-10-2015 4:19pm

If they were that outraged, and enough so to write to a paper, why not name the restaurant.l?This is a joke that someone is sitting back having a great laugh over. Total non-story.

Strumms · 30-10-2015 4:20pm

Im really struggling with the idea that a person in charge of a business would do such a thing. If it went down as reported if i was in that situation id identify the problem as the person who complained having unreasonable demands regarding two people shouldnt be mildly affectionate in a restuarant..

However id like to hear the other side of the story.. were they a bit pissed perhaps being loud and brash and disturbing people enjoying a dinner in a nice (presumably) quiet restaurant.. just playing devils advocate as what was initially reported seems a bit simplistic somehow in this day and age...

On a semi related note i walked into well known dublin music pub during the afternoon a couple of weeks ago. Sat down while waiting for friends over a pint when about 7 lads came in.. in high spirits etc and sat down not far away.. pub was empty apart from us... the volume of conversation made it impossible not to take note of what was being said and the conversation for the next 20 mins was just a round robin conversation of sexual experiences in the most graphic and detailed manner imaginable without care or interest for whoever should be in earshot... they were gay males ok.. had it been a bunch of girls or mixed company going on in the same manner it would still be equally crass and off putting. Again playing devils advocate it just shows that people of all types can on occassion behave in a manner without realising that might irritate others in a social surounding.. maybe it wasnt cause they were gay.. or affectionate... but how was their behavioir in general on the night.. we are yet to hear the other side..

etoughguy · 30-10-2015 4:21pm

It wasn't my restaurant I can assure everyone of that

Then again I dont own a restaurant

diomed · 30-10-2015 4:33pm

This is a detail-free story. A story.

etoughguy · 30-10-2015 4:34pm

diomed wrote: »

This is a detail-free story. A story.

Ya but the devil is in the detail

alcaline · 30-10-2015 4:43pm

It's a shame that the restrauant has not been named, bookings would go through the roof.

haveringchick · 30-10-2015 4:44pm

when my daughter was younger I had occasion several times to approach people and ask them to modify their, in my opinion,inappropriate behaviour, most often teenagers cursing and mauling one another in our local children's playground in the middle of the day, and once on a train in the evening when a couple in their thirties sat opposite is and commenced fondling each other and open mouthed kissing as soon as the train started moving.
At the next stop I told them they were being inconsiderate and bad mannered and she drunkenly told me to **** off.
When I brought the ticket inspector she sobered up and argued that they'd being cuddling because she was "cold and tired". Another woman pulled the inspectors sleeve and said that she had wanted to say something too as she was with her elderly father, but was too nervous
The couple then gathered their things highly indignant and moved seats
I would have done this if they had been 2 men 2 women or 2 Jedi knights
If you are too stupid too ignorant too badly raised too inconsiderate or too drunk to behave like a civilised human being in public then gay straight or Klingon you deserve to be pulled on it

etoughguy · 30-10-2015 4:45pm

haveringchick wrote: »

when my daughter was younger I had occasion several times to approach people and ask them to modify their, in my opinion,inappropriate behaviour, most often teenagers cursing and mauling one another in our local children's playground in the middle of the day, and once on a train in the evening when a couple in their thirties sat opposite is and commenced fondling each other and open mouthed kissing as soon as the train started moving.
At the next stop I told them they were being inconsiderate and bad mannered and she drunkenly told me to **** off.
When I brought the ticket inspector she sobered up and argued that they'd being cuddling because she was "cold and tired". Another woman pulled the inspectors sleeve and said that she had wanted to say something too as she was with her elderly father, but was too nervous
The couple then gathered their things highly indignant and moved seats
I would have done this if they had been 2 men 2 women or 2 Jedi knights
If you are too stupid too ignorant too badly raised too inconsiderate or too drunk to behave like a civilised human being in public then gay straight or Klingon you deserve to be pulled on it

Ah come on now with all their training jedi knights would know better

Ghost Buster · 30-10-2015 4:46pm

haveringchick wrote: »

when my daughter was younger I had occasion several times to approach people and ask them to modify their, in my opinion,inappropriate behaviour, most often teenagers cursing and mauling one another in our local children's playground in the middle of the day, and once on a train in the evening when a couple in their thirties sat opposite is and commenced fondling each other and open mouthed kissing as soon as the train started moving.
At the next stop I told them they were being inconsiderate and bad mannered and she drunkenly told me to **** off.
When I brought the ticket inspector she sobered up and argued that they'd being cuddling because she was "cold and tired". Another woman pulled the inspectorssleeve and said that she had wanted to say something too as she was with her elderly father, but was too nervous
The couple then gathered their things highly indignant and moved seats
I would have done this if they had been 2 men 2 women or 2 Jedi knights

If you are too stupid too ignorant too badly raised too inconsiderate or too drunk to behave like a civilised human being in public then gay straight or Klingon you deserve to be pulled on it

How is this relevant to this discussion?

Diamond Doll · 30-10-2015 4:48pm

haveringchick wrote: »

when my daughter was younger I had occasion several times to approach people and ask them to modify their, in my opinion,inappropriate behaviour, most often teenagers cursing and mauling one another in our local children's playground in the middle of the day, and once on a train in the evening when a couple in their thirties sat opposite is and commenced fondling each other and open mouthed kissing as soon as the train started moving.
At the next stop I told them they were being inconsiderate and bad mannered and she drunkenly told me to **** off.
When I brought the ticket inspector she sobered up and argued that they'd being cuddling because she was "cold and tired". Another woman pulled the inspectors sleeve and said that she had wanted to say something too as she was with her elderly father, but was too nervous
The couple then gathered their things highly indignant and moved seats
I would have done this if they had been 2 men 2 women or 2 Jedi knights
If you are too stupid too ignorant too badly raised too inconsiderate or too drunk to behave like a civilised human being in public then gay straight or Klingon you deserve to be pulled on it

They were holding hands and looking into each others eyes ... your examples above are pretty irrelevant.

alcaline · 30-10-2015 4:53pm

Diamond Doll wrote: »

They were holding hands and looking into each others eyes ... your examples above are pretty irrelevant.

If they left out the restaurant name why not leave out other information?

baldbear · 30-10-2015 4:54pm

This story to me rings of pure bs.

Are the gay couple named? Is the restaurant named? And why not?

One eyed Jack · 30-10-2015 5:03pm

Ghost Buster wrote: »

How is this relevant to this discussion?

It's relevant because the person who wrote the letter assumes that it's only because they were a gay couple that they were asked by management not to be so affectionate with each other in the restaurant.

haveringchicks point is simply that it's ridiculous to assume that it was simply because they were gay that they were asked to tone it down. They were asked to leave when they started arguing with management after a waiter had asked them to tone it down because other customers had complained.

It's much more reasonable to assume that that these people were simply being inconsiderate of other people in the restaurant, and that has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and everything to do with their attitude and their lack of consideration for other people.

By all means carry on with the PDA anyone feels they are entitled to, but by that same standard, they shouldn't expect that other people share their standards.

Jan Laco · 30-10-2015 5:10pm

I suspect they were doing more than just holding hands for people to complain, and the newspaper trying to make a shock story.

People might complain about any over zealous couple, not just homosexual couples in public areas. Homesexual couples should have equality and that includes behaving in public like everyone should.

30-10-2015 5:11pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I make a complaint, I do expect, and I have every right to expect that my complaint is taken seriously.

As seriously as the individual complaint warrants. And as I said - informing you of your best way to depart the premises is the maximum you should expect for the particular complaint THIS thread is about. If this is not enough for you - to the point it makes you feel like complaining is a waste of time - then just like the original complaint - that is your issue not the establishments.

Again this is NOT about not having the right to complain or a complaint being taken seriously. It IS about having the right to complain and that complaint been treated in a fashion proportional to what the complaint warrants.

And if a customer complains that a PDA is bothering them - than all the complaint warrants is being informed they have the choice to leave or - if the proprietor is feeling especially accommodating - offer them a new table in a different location away from whatever they are taking petty issue with. After all - people request a change of table quite regularly in restaurants - often for seemingly paltry reasons. I heard one person request a new table due to the angle the table was fixed at relative to the angle of the entrance for example. By all means - give someone a new table if they want.

Not responding to the complaint how you might want them to - is NOT failing to take the complaint seriously however. Let us not conflate the two.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One man's PDA is another man's PDS.

Oh indeed I am certain that it is a continuum and somewhere around the border between the two is a grey area where different people would have different opinions about where the line is drawn between PDA and PDS. But THIS thread is about hand holding - an action that is performed in just about every location of public life - and as often between non-sexual relationships as with sexual ones. Siblings. Friends. Adults and children. The list goes on of people engaging in this PDA.

And anyone putting hand holding in the PDS category is likely such an extremist in their views of human tactility that going to a restaurant is likely to be the least of their problems in their interactions with the outside world.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already stated that I have an issue with PDA

And I already have stated that there is no problem with that. Just ensure you continue to note that it is YOUR issue and restaurants have no expectation to pander to it. Nor - despite claiming there are restaurants upholding such "standards" which customers not only know about - but go to specifically to pay for the unkeep of those standards - have you managed to offer a short list of any such places despite being asked over 3 times by at least 2 users.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and I expect that complaint to be taken seriously.

And as I say - informing you that the exits are fully functional or - where possible that another table is available - is as seriously as such a complaint warrants being taken. If that turned out not to be enough for you - bully for you - the complaint was still taken seriously.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why do you assume the complaining customer was likely and possibly bigoted against homosexuals?

I didn't. I said I consider it likely they were after YOU brought homosexuality into your response to me despite my post never bring it up. Quite the difference there so perhaps reply to what I said - not what you modified it to as is your wont. My point is not based on the assumption at all - I merely acknowledge WHILE making the point that it is a likely motivation. The core point I make about the _possibility_ the complaining customer had some unequal sway over the manager - remains the same.

And that point is that I do not find an event like this as unlikely as you do - because there is any number of reasons why someone might complain - and any number of reasons the owner might feel compelled to make a bad choice in upholding that complaint. The customer being a relatively high paying regular is just the first of many examples that jumped to mind and I would advise taking up the actual point - rather than getting too involved with one of many possible examples of the point.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thing about that kind of thinking is that it implies that nobody should have to be considerate of other people or how their behaviour may make other people feel uncomfortable

Not the implication I am making _at all_. Quite the opposite. The reason I am distinguishing between PDA and PDS for example is that I very much DO recognise that we have to be considerate of others in our behaviours. But I also recognise that some behaviours are so ubiquitous, common and non-intrusive that they warrant no consideration at all.

And hand holding is one of them. I can think of few places at all - and restaurants are no where even close to being on that tiny list - where I feel who I mutually hold hands with - or why - should warrant consideration of any sort for others from me. Not just a little consideration - but literally none _at all_.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Possibly we are talking about two different things, because you're putting forward the motivation for the objection to PDA in this case being motivated by homophobia

No. I am not. At all. I never mentioned it in my original post to you. YOU brought it up - and now YOU are pretending I was the one putting this forward. Go back to my original post - the majority of which you did not even bother replying to. There was nothing about the motivation for the complain there. Anywhere.

So basically your MO here has been to ignore the majority of my post - bring up a total tangent about other people jumping to some conclusion of homophobia while writing a post that did not actually reply to most of what I wrote - and now you are pretending it was me "putting it forward". Where do you get this stuff?

My actual comments about objections to PDA were separate from homophobia _entirely_. YOU brought that into it. My points stand entirely unchanged whatever their motivation was. For all I know the person complaining was actually the Ex Partner of one of the couple - and they were being put off their dinner by jealousy. Yet if this was the motivation - nothing I have said about their complaint - the value of their complaint - or how the complaint should be dealt with - is modified one iota.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm talking about an objection to PDA in general

As am I.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is no reason IMO to assume the complaint was motivated by homophobia

Good - because I didn't. You brought it up while writing a response entirely tangential to anything I wrote.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

every reason to assume it was motivated by a distaste for PDA in general.

Nope there is not. We have no idea what the motivation was. So assuming one more likely than another is just you making it up. I would see any assumption it was homophobia to be EQUAL in value to the assumption it was against PDA in general. Both are baseless assumptions. I merely said there is a likelihood it was sexuality motivated. I did not say it was THE most likely - or more or less likely than any other possibility - I just said it _is_ likely. Though I do acknowledge many people do mistakenly read "It is a likely X" as meaning "The most likely X is....".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don't limit yourself on my account, I certainly don't limit myself on your account

You misunderstand me. It is not me I am limiting but you - in that I am only responding to the parts of your post that were actually relevant to mine which you are replying to and not allowing myself to be dragged off point by tangents irrelevant entirely to any point I made. It is an MO I have noticed in the past - and so I tend to stifle it much earlier now in conversations.

CatFromHue · 30-10-2015 5:13pm

Diamond Doll wrote: »

They were holding hands and looking into each others japs eyes

FYP

Badly Drunk Boy · 30-10-2015 5:22pm

haveringchick wrote: »

when my daughter was younger I had occasion several times to approach people and ask them to modify their, in my opinion,inappropriate behaviour, most often teenagers cursing and mauling one another in our local children's playground in the middle of the day, and once on a train in the evening when a couple in their thirties sat opposite is and commenced fondling each other and open mouthed kissing as soon as the train started moving.
At the next stop I told them they were being inconsiderate and bad mannered and she drunkenly told me to **** off.
When I brought the ticket inspector she sobered up and argued that they'd being cuddling because she was "cold and tired". Another woman pulled the inspectors sleeve and said that she had wanted to say something too as she was with her elderly father, but was too nervous
The couple then gathered their things highly indignant and moved seats
I would have done this if they had been 2 men 2 women or 2 Jedi knights
If you are too stupid too ignorant too badly raised too inconsiderate or too drunk to behave like a civilised human being in public then gay straight or Klingon you deserve to be pulled on it

Diamond Doll wrote: »

They were holding hands and looking into each others eyes ... your examples above are pretty irrelevant.

In haveringchick's example, if the drunken woman wrote a letter about being tackled about her behaviour, her version would have been more like "We were just holding hands!" rather than "We were drunkenly fumbling away at each other, making people of all ages uncomfortable to be in our presence.".

That's why it's relevant.

ScumLord · 30-10-2015 5:24pm

etoughguy wrote: »

Ya but the devil is in the detail

I'm beginning to think this "story" is just an excellent piece of **** stirring. Depending on what bias you come to the story with you can read the story as a way of heaping contempt on both sides. If you support LGBT you can see it as stupid conservative restaurant, panders to stupid conservative customers, for no good reason. Or if you're a homophobe you can read between the lines and come to the conclusion that the gay couple where eating the faces off each other and threw a tantrum that got them kicked out.

The lack of details allow both sides to make up their own details to suit their bias. Both parties will then go on to spread a highly sensationalised version of the story to their friends.

diomed · 30-10-2015 5:28pm

Everyone is a hero in their own story.

haveringchick · 30-10-2015 5:30pm

Ghost Buster wrote: »

How is this relevant to this discussion?

Seriously, you genuinely can't see any comparisons? None? Not one?

jobbridge4life · 30-10-2015 5:36pm

haveringchick wrote: »

when my daughter was younger I had occasion several times to approach people and ask them to modify their, in my opinion,inappropriate behaviour, most often teenagers cursing and mauling one another in our local children's playground in the middle of the day, and once on a train in the evening when a couple in their thirties sat opposite is and commenced fondling each other and open mouthed kissing as soon as the train started moving.
At the next stop I told them they were being inconsiderate and bad mannered and she drunkenly told me to **** off.
When I brought the ticket inspector she sobered up and argued that they'd being cuddling because she was "cold and tired". Another woman pulled the inspectors sleeve and said that she had wanted to say something too as she was with her elderly father, but was too nervous
The couple then gathered their things highly indignant and moved seats
I would have done this if they had been 2 men 2 women or 2 Jedi knights
If you are too stupid too ignorant too badly raised too inconsiderate or too drunk to behave like a civilised human being in public then gay straight or Klingon you deserve to be pulled on it

With respect has anyone here suggested otherwise? This thread is full of people hearing one story and deciding in a total fact void that it can't possibly have been that way. Its ridiculous.

Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

Comments