Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

haveringchick

Diamond Doll wrote: »

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

In the letter to the magazine the author claims to have been merely holding hands and gazing into his lovers eyes, totally acceptable behaviour, completely inoffensive.
But the couple on my train claimed to be only cuddling despite the fact as seen by me and an independent witness that she was encouraging her lover to fondle her breasts under her sweatshirt
The point is that in defending themselves people will "spin" the story to put themselves in a more positive light
It's human nature

[QUOTE=jobbridge4life;97557612This 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.[/QUOTE]

^ Yea I am choosing to go with the story being totally false and made up - but at the same time treating it as a thought experiment for the argument of PDAs in restaurants in General. An argument that I think feeds into other discussions like breast feeding in public places like restaurants and so forth.

I do not believe the story happened really - but I can believe something very like it can happen and sometimes does in our world. So I think we can make general responses to the scenario the story describes - without reading too much into this particular - likely apocryphal - case.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

You're right tax about this much. I do misunderstand you, but it's not for the lack of trying to understand where you're coming from. I do understand where you're coming from, but I'm just not sure how to respond in a way that would help you understand where I'm coming from as we seem to have polar opposite perspectives on this one.

I mean, you seem to be suggesting that I should have no expectation that if I make a complaint, that my complaint would be resolved to my satisfaction, and that seems to be our fundamental disagreement. If I make a complaint, I absolutely expect it to be resolved to my satisfaction. If I complain to the waiter that another couple is spoiling my dining experience with their PDA, then I am entitled to every expectation that my complaint will be resolved to my satisfaction so that I can continue to enjoy my dining experience.

In this particular case, it's likely that management would have accommodated me, rather than the other couple, so your claim that I shouldn't expect to be accommodated is most likely incorrect, in that particular instance at least.

I am basing my opinion on my own experience that any time I have made a complaint about other people's behaviour in a restaurant, I have been accommodated, and the offending party has not been accommodated. I wouldn't make a complaint about anyone holding hands in a restaurant, but that would be my standards. Your standards are different again. By your standards, you would suggest that I would move to another table.

That, in no way, correlates with my experience of dining out in a restaurant where they have a reputation to uphold. I cannot name for you any restaurant where they have a standard of behaviour on a list, but I can say to you that in many restaurants I've been to, they also don't have a dress code on a list, but what they do have, is an expected dress code, and an expected standard of behaviour.

You know where that standard is, when the waiter comes over to you and tells you to put back on your jacket, or tells you that your displays of affection are putting other customers off their dinner, or your behaviour is impacting negatively upon the dining experience of other customers.

Then, the choice is yours, to get up and leave if you don't like being told your behaviour is unacceptable.

jobbridge4life

haveringchick wrote: »

In the letter to the magazine the author claims to have been merely holding hands and gazing into his lovers eyes, totally acceptable behaviour, completely inoffensive.
But the couple on my train claimed to be only cuddling despite the fact as seen by me and an independent witness that she was encouraging her lover to fondle her breasts under her sweatshirt
The point is that in defending themselves people will "spin" the story to put themselves in a more positive light
It's human nature

But that assumes the individual in question is a negative light in the first instance. This individual wrote the letter anonymously and so was and is in no light of any kind that point doesn't remotely apply in this situation. It would be different if they had named themselves and attacked the restaurant but they didn't and they didn't even say they were forced to leave!

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

But that assumes the individual in question is a negative light in the first instance. This individual wrote the letter anonymously and so was and is in no light of any kind that point doesn't remotely apply in this situation. It would be different if they had named themselves and attacked the restaurant but they didn't and they didn't even say they were forced to leave!

They were asked to tone it down, and most people in my experience, would tone it down when asked to do so. It's rare that they would ask to speak to management, and then even more rare again that they would have management suggest that they should leave and that they would not be charged for their meal.

So the question really has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and more to do with the fact that they didn't want to consider other diners in the restaurant. Why then should they expect any consideration, when they themselves felt they didn't have to show consideration for anyone else?

Clearly a full and frank account of the events that transpired, and how they transpired, is missing from that letter. It's absolutely of no use whatsoever! It has achieved nothing.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They were asked to tone it down, and most people in my experience, would tone it down when asked to do so. It's rare that they would ask to speak to management, and then even more rare again that they would have management suggest that they should leave and that they would not be charged for their meal.

You can be damn sure that if I was told to tame it down and I felt that I was not in the wrong I'd be asking to speak to management. If what is alleged is accurate and it was me I'd have exploded.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So the question really has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and more to do with the fact that they didn't want to consider other diners in the restaurant. Why then should they expect any consideration, when they themselves felt they didn't have to show consideration for anyone else?

You can't possibly know that. You are making wild assumptions.

Ghost Buster

haveringchick wrote: »

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

No. Its relevant to assumptions being made about what , if anything, actually happened. We can only go on what was stated, that they were holding hands and so is not relevant.
Had the letter mentions tonsil hockey and dry humping over the table you may have a point.

Kev W

CatFromHue wrote: »

I used to make people laugh in school and it doesn't work anymore and I'm lonely.

FYP

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You can be damn sure that if I was told to tame it down and I felt that I was not in the wrong I'd be asking to speak to management. If what is alleged is accurate and it was me I'd have exploded.

Key point there really, I imagine the person who wrote that letter felt the same way. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption, and therefore it's hardly an unreasonable assumption to suggest that you are being inconsiderate of other people in the restaurant who feel that you are in the wrong.

You can't possibly know that. You are making wild assumptions.

Hardly wild assumptions now are they given that you've written above that not only would you not have considered that you were in the wrong, but that you would have exploded for it being pointed out to you that you are in the wrong.

Responding in a calm and collected manner usually results in better outcomes for all concerned because then they are all being considerate of each other.

ScumLord

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You can be damn sure that if I was told to tame it down and I felt that I was not in the wrong I'd be asking to speak to management.

But you might not realize your actions were making others uncomfortable. Maybe this guy asked to see the manager and handed the waiter a used condom to dispose of on the way back to the kitchen.

jobbridge4life

ScumLord wrote: »

But you might not realize your actions were making others uncomfortable. Maybe this guy asked to see the manager and handed the waiter a used condom to dispose of on the way back to the kitchen.

And maybe the couple was masturbating to 2 girls one cup and flicked snot in the soup belonging to the woman who said 'disgusting'.

Maybe they were holding hands, looking in each others eyes and using racist expletives against the black waiter.

Maybe the black waiter was really cranky that day because his wife, Sarah, is being a total B at home and when got to the restaraunt and saw these masturbating racists who were wearing nazi paraphernalia he was more accepting of the other customers', who were all hasidic jews, complaint?

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And maybe the couple was masturbating to 2 girls one cup and flicked snot in the soup belonging to the woman who said 'disgusting'.

Maybe they were holding hands, looking in each others eyes and using racist expletives against the black waiter.

Maybe the black waiter was really cranky that day because wife, Sarah is being a total B at home and when got to the restaraunt and saw these masturbating racists who were wearing nazi paraphernalia he was more accepting of the other customers', who were all hasidic jews, complaint?

It's also quite possible everyone else had a more enjoyable dining experience once the writer of the letter had left the restaurant. If I were one of those diners, I'd have been glad to see the back of him too tbh.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's also quite possible everyone else had a more enjoyable dining experience once the writer of the letter had left the restaurant. If I were one of those diners, I'd have been glad to see the back of him too tbh.

You'd have been glad to see the back of a man who you know nothing about, who from the only account of his behaviour was holding hands with someone and looking at them in a restaurant? Have you entirely taken leave of your senses?

Meanwhile we dance further down the road of useless conjecture.

This is getting dull, I am going back to my nazi, scat loving, racist, snot flicking gays and poor henpecked black waiter fantasy. Its as imaginary as everyone else's theories but at least its exciting.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's also quite possible everyone else had a more enjoyable dining experience once the writer of the letter had left the restaurant. If I were one of those diners, I'd have been glad to see the back of him too tbh.

Phrasing.

jobbridge4life

Kev W wrote: »

Phrasing.

Is that you Sterling?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do understand where you're coming from, but I'm just not sure how to respond in a way that would help you understand where I'm coming

No point - I do understand where you are coming from - which is why I am explaining the disagreement. Not agreeing with you != not understanding you.

You think holding hands is a PDA maybe worthy of some level of complaint and that having complained one should expect to be satisfied regardless of how ridiculous their standards for satisfaction may be. It is not worthy of complaint and at best upon complaining one should either be reminded where the exits are, or offered a new table.

Certainly the object of their complaint should not be disturbed - let alone asked to leave.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I mean, you seem to be suggesting that I should have no expectation that if I make a complaint, that my complaint would be resolved to my satisfaction

I may or may not suggest that depending on what "your satisfaction" entails. No one expected to satisfy you - they are just expected to offer things that might do so. If it does not - this is your issue not theirs.

If it entails disrupting the dinner of someone who is doing nothing wrong - let alone asking them to leave - then I see no reason why the complaint would need to be resolved to your satisfaction.

They can offer options to you - such as leave or move table - to ATTEMPT to satisfy you. If they do not satisfy however - I see no reason why they should go further. I certainly see no reason why they should offer anything that disrupts the dinner of _other people_ doing _nothing at all wrong_ merely because it bothers _you_. If the presence of a black man bothered me - how far should they go to satisfy me? Again offer me a new table - or the exit - that is all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I cannot name for you any restaurant where they have a standard of behaviour on a list

No - I did not expect you could. No surprise there. Likely because there ARE no restaurants that maintain ANY standards on people joining hands.

TrustedApple

Like would people have a problem with this.

One night in my old job I was asked to take a photo of a lesbian couple kissing each other after she asked her to marry her ?.

I didn't I even gave them 2 glasses of spark wine to celebrate it.

Some people didn't like it but that's there problem they can go somewhere else.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No point - I do understand where you are coming from - which is why I am explaining the disagreement. Not agreeing with you != not understanding you.

You think holding hands is a PDA maybe worthy of some level of complaint and that having complained one should expect to be satisfied regardless of how ridiculous their standards for satisfaction may be. It is not worthy of complaint and at best upon complaining one should either be reminded where the exits are, or offered a new table.

Certainly the object of their complaint should not be disturbed - let alone asked to leave.

No, you're taking my standards and mixing them up with someone elses. I've said numerous times I personally wouldn't complain about a couple holding hands in a restaurant. It'd irritate me, but I wouldn't consider it complaint worthy. I understand at the same time that someone else may be irritated to the point where they would consider it complaint worthy, and that person has every right to expect that their complaint will be resolved to their satisfaction.

It may not be resolved to their satisfaction, but that doesn't detract from my point that they have every right to make a complaint and every right to expect that it is resolved to their satisfaction. Where there is considerable disagreement, the management of the restaurant will act as immediate arbiter to determine whether a request is reasonable, or unreasonable.

In this case, the couple were told to tone it down. The management considered this a reasonable request. The customer did not. It turns out that the customer may always think they're right, but that doesn't confer on them any right to PDA. Nobody has that right. They don't even have that right in a family restaurant like Supermacs. Supermacs don't have a policy written up on the matter, but the standards are determined by management, and if a customer makes a complaint about another customer infringing upon their enjoyment of their meal because of their PDA, well, it's quite likely that couple will be asked to tone it down. The situation is no different in a high class establishment.

I may or may not suggest that depending on what "your satisfaction" entails. No one expected to satisfy you - they are just expected to offer things that might do so. If it does not - this is your issue not theirs.

If it entails disrupting the dinner of someone who is doing nothing wrong - let alone asking them to leave - then I see no reason why the complaint would need to be resolved to your satisfaction.

And when you own your own restaurant, you are free to apply what standards you like, but if you and I were in a restaurant, and I feel that your behaviour is disrupting my enjoyment of my experience, it will be the management who will be the arbiter of what is a reasonable request, and what is an unacceptable standard of behaviour. That's why I mentioned the jacket earlier - I took off my jacket (a suit jacket), I'd barely left it on the back of the chair when a waiter appeared beside me and whispered to me to put my jacket back on. I put my jacket back on rather sharpish. Felt a bit sheepish about it as I was unfamiliar with the expected dress code, and that's why I said that you only know what is expected of you when your behaviour doesn't meet an expected standard.

That's why I introduced the extreme of the assless chaps and fcuking on tables, because that's not written up either, and yet people know that they should not do these things! How do they know? Did anyone tell them? No, because these are an expected standard.

No hand holding? I've never heard of it nor experienced it, but a restaurant is entitled to set it's own expected standard of behaviour, and if I was told no hand holding (I wouldn't hold hands in public anyway, we're not likely to lose each other sitting at a table), then I would hold no hands and wouldn't make a fuss over it.

They can offer options to you - such as leave or move table - to ATTEMPT to satisfy you. If they do not satisfy however - I see no reason why they should go further. I certainly see no reason why they should offer anything that disrupts the dinner of _other people_ doing _nothing at all wrong_ merely because it bothers _you_. If the presence of a black man bothered me - how far should they go to satisfy me? Again offer me a new table - or the exit - that is all.

Again, that's why I said you had a good point about who is the more valued customer - you and your fellow meat dodging companion with your flexible bodies and your fantastic complexion, sharing a caesar salad starter, or fat bastard me that orders the starters, the house steak, desserts, and a couple of bottles of their finest wine? It's probably a hell of a lot easier even physically speaking, to move you than it is me!

Not sure where the black lad appeared out of, must have been hiding under the table with the red herring.

No - I did not expect you could. No surprise there. Likely because there ARE no restaurants that maintain ANY standards on people joining hands.

Well, according to the author of that letter, published in Gay Community News magazine, there's at least one restaurant in Dublin city centre where holding hands is a no no! I'd love to know where it is myself, if the food and the service are up to my standards, I might even become one of their best customers!

Kiwi in IE

People who don't want to look at gay couples should stay inside their houses at all times. Hope the restaurant gets suitably sued for responding the way they did.

alcaline

TrustedApple wrote: »

Like would people have a problem with this.

One night in my old job I was asked to take a photo of a lesbian couple kissing each other after she asked her to marry her ?.

I didn't I even gave them 2 glasses of spark wine to celebrate it.

Some people didn't like it but that's there problem they can go somewhere else.

Or the restaurants could put up a sign in the window, "We don't mind gay PDA", the place would be empty bar the odd gay couple, straight couples would avoid like the plague, Why you ask, fact is most straight people are somewhat repulsed by seeing two men getting all romantic and kissing. Just because The PC mob don't like it don't mean its not true.

py2006

Do we know the restaurant or is it still a secret?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

People who don't want to look at gay couples should stay inside their houses at all times. Hope the restaurant gets suitably sued for responding the way they did.

People who think I need to witness their public displays of affection while I'm eating my dinner, should probably stay out of restaurants where public displays of affection are not tolerated. That's the other way of looking at it. I don't expect you to take that argument seriously though, just like I wouldn't take your argument seriously that if I don't want to see PDA, I should stay inside my house at all times.

Private displays of affection? Nobody has a problem with those.

I can't see any reason for the restaurant being sued if the account given in that letter is accurate.

tayto lover

alcaline wrote: »

Or the restaurants could put up a sign in the window, "We don't mind gay PDA", the place would be empty bar the odd gay couple, straight couples would avoid like the plague, Why you ask, fact is most straight people are somewhat repulsed by seeing two men getting all romantic and kissing. Just because The PC mob don't like it don't mean its not true.

A lot of that PDA stuff is just attention seeking imo i.e. "look at us we're gay".
That's if it happened at all.

mynameis905

alcaline wrote: »

Or the restaurants could put up a sign in the window, "We don't mind gay PDA", the place would be empty bar the odd gay couple, straight couples would avoid like the plague, Why you ask, fact is most straight people are somewhat repulsed by seeing two men getting all romantic and kissing. Just because The PC mob don't like it don't mean its not true.

Horseshít. 62% of the population would be fairly unlikely to vote for same sex marriage while simultaneously finding homosexuality repulsive.

You're on the wrong side of history amigo. Back to your cave now.

One eyed Jack

tayto lover wrote: »

A lot of that PDA stuff is just attention seeking imo i.e. "look at us we're gay".
That's if it happened at all.

I don't think it is tbh. I mean, by that rationale, what's the reasoning behind PDA among people who are straight?

"Look at us, we're... straight?" :pac:

Nah, I think it's literally what it's name says it is - a public display of affection. This is why I find them cringeworthy, because I just don't have any time for people who feel a need to display their affection for each other in public!

I can understand teenagers and the inherent immaturity of being a teenager, the giddiness of first love and so on and of course with that mentality I could understand why you feel like you want the world to know you're in love, but as adults?

No, not so much.

alcaline

mynameis905 wrote: »

Horseshít. 62% of the population would be fairly unlikely to vote for same sex marriage while simultaneously finding homosexuality repulsive.

You're on the wrong side of history amigo. Back to your cave now.

Your post is a Perfect example of PC thinking, most straight people have no problem with gay people getting married and living a happy life, but fact is we don't want to know Fukc all about their lifestyle, and find the sight of two men kissing repulsive.
So to make it simple for PC dullards, straight folk wish you all the best in your gay marriage but we don't want to know about it.
Whats so hard about that to understand?

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who think I need to witness their public displays of affection while I'm eating my dinner, should probably stay out of restaurants where public displays of affection are not tolerated. That's the other way of looking at it. I don't expect you to take that argument seriously though, just like I wouldn't take your argument seriously that if I don't want to see PDA, I should stay inside my house at all times.

Private displays of affection? Nobody has a problem with those.

I can't see any reason for the restaurant being sued if the account given in that letter is accurate.

You're right, I must remember to never hold my husbands hand again in a restaurant in case we are asked to leave! Yeah right! Are people not allowed to propose in restaurants any longer in case other diners get put off their meals? Of course you can justify it and it wasn't discrimination!

Azalea

alcaline wrote: »

fact is most straight people are somewhat repulsed by seeing two men getting all romantic and kissing.

I don't know if it's a fact that most people do though. I'm sure lots do but I don't know if most do.

I don't like when any people are being overly amorous in public, no matter what sexuality.

A bit affectionate is no biggie IMO though.

NomadicGray

NomadicGray wrote: »

I hear the guy complaining sleeps nude in an oxygen tent which he believes gives him sexual powers!

I heard they went into the restaurant and they ate all the food in the restaurant and they had to close the restaurant

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, you're taking my standards and mixing them up with someone elses. I've said numerous times I personally wouldn't complain about a couple holding hands in a restaurant.

And I said numerous times I am not talking about just you but the whole idea of complaining about such an inane PDA. I very clearly said "You think holding hands is a PDA maybe worthy of some level of complaint and that having complained one should expect to be satisfied regardless of how ridiculous their standards for satisfaction may be." which does not indicate it has to be YOU doing the complaining. So it is you taking things and mixing it up - not me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

that person has every right to expect that their complaint will be resolved to their satisfaction.

Not necessarily which is the core of my point. Their expectation should be tempered by what it will take to satisfy them. They should not expect satisfaction merely by virtue of having complained. The expectations have to be tempered by what it is they are complaining about - and what an appropriate response to that complaint is - and what it is they personally feel "satisfaction" entails.

For example - to be extreme just to make the point - if "their" satisfaction entails the couple in question be taken out back and shot - then they have no basis for expecting satisfaction. It is an entirely unreasonable request.

If "their" satisfaction is that they merely be offered another table further away from the source of their ire - then they have quite a lot of basis for expecting satisfaction because that is an entirely reasonable request. .

YOU appear to expect "satisfaction" - whatever that may be or may mean - regardless as if the owner owes you "satisfaction" as a blank cheque whatever it means to you.

I am pointing out that that is tosh. Especially when the person you are complaining about is actually doing nothing at all wrong and the problem lies with you and you alone.

Your right to expect satisfaction is not supreme - it entirely depends on what "satisfaction" entails for you. And if the "satisfaction" relates to someone holding hands - that is to say they are doing nothing at all wrong of any sort - then you would not be warranted in expecting any satisfaction at all beyond either been informed you can leave any time you want - or being offered another table. As the object of ire are not actually doing a single thing wrong - there is no basis for disturbing them _at all_ - let alone asking that they leave. Both are unreasonable requests.

Now in a different context where the object of ire is actually doing something wrong or intrusive - we could parse entirely differently what you would be warranted in expecting upon complaint. But holding hands - that ain't it. Nothing wrong. Nothing intrusive. There is no reason to pander to your hang ups at all - let alone to the degree of disturbing - or even banishing - entirely innocent people. For THAT I could only tell such a person "Get over yourself".