Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I never said they weren't doing more than holding hands. I asked where the information that they were "definitely kissing" came from.
You wouldn't just assume I meant that, would you?
No, I wouldn't, which is why I asked
I asked because I wondered do you honestly, genuinely believe that the management of the restaurant asked this couple to leave the restaurant because they were holding hands?
Does that seem any way improbable to you at all given the circumstances as they are actually being laid out in that letter, and the writers reaction to being asked to leave the restaurant, as though Irish society actually is this hotbed of hidden homophobia, where in a Dublin city centre restaurant, a couple are asked by management to leave the restaurant because the writer assumes it's because they are gay?
I'd suggest it was far more likely they were asked to leave the restaurant for some other reason other than merely the fact they were a gay couple holding hands and gazing in each others eyes or whatever. I don't know why they were actually asked to leave, but the letter writers explanation seems incredibly unlikely.
What do you think?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »No, I wouldn't, which is why I asked
I asked because I wondered do you honestly, genuinely believe that the management of the restaurant asked this couple to leave the restaurant because they were holding hands?
Does that seem any way improbable to you at all given the circumstances as they are actually being laid out in that letter, and the writers reaction to being asked to leave the restaurant, as though Irish society actually is this hotbed of hidden homophobia, where in a Dublin city centre restaurant, a couple are asked by management to leave the restaurant because the writer assumes it's because they are gay?
I'd suggest it was far more likely they were asked to leave the restaurant for some other reason other than merely the fact they were a gay couple holding hands and gazing in each others eyes or whatever. I don't know why they were actually asked to leave, but the letter writers explanation seems incredibly unlikely.
What do you think?
It's certainly conceivable, though the story is so vague there are dozens of ways it could have gone.
Maybe they were being loud and disruptive and asked to leave and downplayed their behaviour, going so far as to invent the "disgusting" comment.
Maybe they were being loud and disruptive and asked to leave and some homophobic coward snuck in the "disgusting" comment as they were leaving, knowing they would not be able to respond.
Maybe it happened exactly as in the story.
Maybe it's a complete fiction.
Since we don't know (and maybe never will) to me right now the most interesting thing is seeing how people react to the story.
Which, if it is fictional, maybe was the point?
Who knows?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
frostyjacks wrote: »It's common courtesy; people don't go out to restaurants to watch two men eating the face off each other.
Given there is nothing here to suggest anything of the sort was happening - it is entirely unclear why you bring it up?
But yes - I would agree with one thing that you just wrote clearly here. It IS common courtesy that you do not go out to restaurants to watch what other people are doing. So perhaps the people who allegedly complained in this particular case could be reminded of that??Right to refuse admission? Me personally I would leave an establishment if I saw two gay men mauling each other
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. It says a lot about you and the kind of person you are - but there is nothing wrong with it. You have not impinged on the rights of others with your attitudes - and you conduct yourself in the right fashion by realising the issue is yours - not theirs - and acting accordingly. Well done you. Bigotry is one thing - but how you apply it to reality is another - and there is nothing wrong with how you are applying yours.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..
Exactly - and that is why hand holding is irrelevant. Because it has nothing to do with sexuality. People do it all the time - without being sexually involved. Singlings do it. Family do it. I do it with my kids in restaurants and other places. It is a display of AFFECTION not a display of SEXUALITY. That is why it is called a PDA not a PDS. But people are responding to it like it is PDS not PDA.
You say there "has" to be more to this story (assuming it happened at all) but I would only go so far as to say there "could" be more to it. I do not think there "has" to be. Because people make the leap from PDA to PDS and sexualise anything. Go into the average thread on this forum about Public Breast Feeding and see how quickly people sexualise it and then respond to it in THAT context instead of the real one.The Highwayman wrote: »And yes it was kissing not just holding hands.
Can you direct us towards the source of information from which you obtained this please? I only have the OP and the copy paste of the original letter to go on - and it claims the exact opposite to you.Stranger Danger wrote: »3) The whole story is made-up clickbait - Most likely.
I note however you did not end this one with "acceptable" or "not acceptable"
Can we assume the latter? haveringchick wrote: »Well I see a few "name and shame" demands on this thread and on the Independents own site
Why are people so quick to accept totally uncorroborated allegations?
We do it all the time when we read reviews of a movie - a restaurant - or a holiday resort - that we plan to go to. We have no idea if the reviews are accurate - or made up to slander the company - or written by the owner of the company to make the location look better than it actually is (Amazon recently looking to prosecute people who do this after all).
Yet despite having no idea at the validity of the claims in any review - many people still put enough stock in them to bother to read them and evaluate their decision to go there. So why should this be any different? If a customer was treated shoddily by a venue like this - then I want to know so I can include that in my evaluation of the establishment as a whole.
I think the people in the OP did it wrong. Writing to the news paper? Nah. There are sites _specifically for_ reviewing your restaurant experience. They should have gone _there_ and written their review of both the food and the service. So if I ever end up heading towards that restaurants and I log onto the sites storing reviews of it - I can include their experience - along with all the others - in my final decision on whether to attend.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »That's it let's find out where this Restaurant is burn it to the ground, find out who the waiter is and stone him to death, while we are at it we can stone his family too.......
I sometimes wonder do people try being this contrived or do they actually believe they are being genuine?
Given no one on the thread is demanding the things you describe - one wonders if YOU are being contrived in your hyperbole or actually believe you are being genuine?
The vast majority of people who want to know the name of the establishment likely want to do so they can either 1) Not go there themselves ever or 2) Do what the breast feeders there and go there en-masse - behave perfectly well - pay well - tip well - but hold each others hands a lot.
I think you will find the numbers wishing to perform attacks on property or person are very small indeed.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »An allegation was made, let's name and shame a restaurant without any real facts
So just like ANY bad review of ANY restaurant then?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Just to make a comparison
Hardly a fair comparison is it?
In your anecdote they genuinely were causing a disturbance AND were not appearing to be using the establishment for the purpose it was therefore AT ALL. They then brought their sexuality into it as a defence when confronted. And they caused a greater disturbance when asked to leave.
In the OPs anecdote they are causing no disturbance at all AND were using the establishment for its correct purpose. And it was not them that brought sexuality into it at all. And they left peacefully when asked.
So I am unclear where you feel the points of comparison lie here? They seem to be entirely different in EVERY way except the people involved happen to be gay. Is there another point of comparison I am missing here?0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »it won't kill anyone to avoid being touchy feely or hand holding or generally making other patrons uncomfortable.
If said patrons are uncomfortable that someone somewhere in the room might be allowing their HANDS to meet - then said patrons are the ones with the issue here. No one else. And they should question the wisdom of the choice to eat in a public restaurant at all if the mild and non-intrusive actions of others bothers them that much. It is up there with the people who get all in a twist over public breast feeding.
In fact not only are the actions of such people non-intrusive - I find I can not even think of a single restaurant visit I have ever made where anyone would even be in my line of sight for me to even notice something as mild as the meeting of hands. So it is likely one would not only have to be massively over sensitive to the incredibly mild actions of others - but would have to have been actively looking around for it - or have had it called to their attention - then actively continuing to observe it to become bothered by it.
You talk of restaurants with a "standard of behaviour". Can you name some that maintain a standard of behaviour that has anything whatsoever to do with hands meeting? Could you maybe lay out these "standards" in words - and how these "standards" are communicated to the customer in some form - which they must do if the customer is - as you claim - "paying for a certain standard". They must know what it is - if they are specifically paying for it.One eyed Jack wrote: »I would have a massive problem if I were dining out in an establishment which meant I was paying for a certain standard of decorum that didn't include bearing witness to adults engaged in any sort of PDAs, regardless of their age, gender, sex or sexual orientation.
Again - can you lay out a short list of such establishments that are offering this? Clearly you can do so given you are expressly indicating an ability to go there and expressly pay for that standard of decorum. So somehow - somewhere - the restaurant must not only be maintaining such "standards" but communicating them in such a way that you can find your way to specifically paying for them.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.
No you do not! I agree. You have the option to get up and leave. Much like I would not have to sit in a beer garden and tolerate the sight of a disgustingly obese person poured into overly tight lycra cycling outfits coming in dripping in sweat after their cycle and eating a basket of chips.
Because IF that was an issue for me - I could get up - and leave - or turn around and look away. And I would do so knowing the problem lies with ME not with them - and I would be either fine with that - or would seek at some later time to address that issue in myself. And while I may moan that I have the right to complain about it - I certainly should not expect to do so with any expectation of having my complaint pandered to or entertained.One eyed Jack wrote: »I don't know where it is, nobody knows where it is, because the author of the letter has chosen to remain anonymous
I would not like to put words in the mouth of another user - but I suspect they - like me - were not asking you where the restaurant in the OP is - but where the restaurants you describe that maintain the standards you describe are.
Names and general area of a few would do - we do not need specific addresses, phone numbers and websites here.One eyed Jack wrote: »Where did I say my right to comfort and a pleasant dining experience should supercede theirs?
Your right to both has nothing to do with the non-intrusive and mild placement of hands of other people. Up to and including their placement of those hands in each other. It has simply nothing to do with your rights at all - or the service you are imagining the establishment is providing you.One eyed Jack wrote: »I simply said that I have a right to make a complaint to management, and I trust that they will endeavour to accommodate both parties.
And in the case of the particular complaint that the OP and thread is discussing - the only accommodation they should be expected to offer you is information on the nearest exits which you can use at your leisure. What other accommodations you feel you should be afforded in that context is entirely unclear at this point. You have a right to complain and to have your complaint _heard_. That's pretty much about it in this context however - expecting an accommodation for it - not so much.One eyed Jack wrote: »Well I don't imagine they have signs up saying "don't fcuk on the tables, and wipe your chair if you're wearing assless chaps", up about the place either
So in order to manufacture a point you now have to make an analogy between a non-intrusive and highly common action which occurs all over our society in public - with actions that blatantly contravene societal norms about sex - and basic hygiene.
It is an entirely crass and false analogy. You would not expect people to be engaging in sex anywhere in society publicly - parks, buses, the street and so on - so you would not expect it in a restaurant either. But you DO see hand holding in just about every area of public society - yet you are here not only telling us that Restaurants are magically to be made exempt - but that some unnamed as yet restaurants not only maintain that standard but people specifically can go in and wilfully pay for it.One eyed Jack wrote: »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.
All I will say here is do not be at all surprised IF some people view this as a back pedal. Because you opened your membership of the thread with comments about people refraining from "being touchy feely or hand holding or generally making other patrons uncomfortable." and going against some "standards" - and then went on at length to talk about your rights to complain when people breach the standards you perceive to be there (but have not actually shown are there).
So whether you realise it or not everything you have written up to this point very much does come across as hand holding being something you feel worthy of complaint - (whether you would have the gall to do so yourself or merely vicariously and inwardly applaud someone else who does) - which you are now back pedalling from - whether you intended it to or not.One eyed Jack wrote: »Seriously now, think about that - a couple asked to leave a restaurant, because a complaint was made to management that they were holding hands, in a restaurant in Dublin city centre?
Not unlikely at all. Some people genuinely do not know how to deal with such complaints and will simply make the wrong decision in the moment. I have worked enough with the public to know that quite often your first reaction is to appease the person actually complaining - without thinking through the consequences of doing so.
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.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement