Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

wakka12 · 31-10-2015 03:40PM

Azalea wrote: »

There is literally not one occurrence of the "gaystapo being out in force, bullying and shaming bla bla" in relation to this incident - not one.

That post got a big bunch of likes too - some people simply do not think.

Its just pissy people who are disappointed that homophobia isn't the status quo any longer

diograis · 31-10-2015 04:06PM

gaystapo is a fantastic word to be fair, where do I sign up?

arayess · 31-10-2015 04:33PM

Azalea wrote: »

There is literally not one occurrence of the "gaystapo being out in force, bullying and shaming bla bla" in relation to this incident - not one.

That post got a big bunch of likes too - some people simply do not think.

I liked it because for one I liked the comment. The way it stuck a finger at the right-on brigade. And the notion of "gaystapo" amused me cos it would annoy others here. I did think...I thought a lot about it and it amused me

I agree that most posts are questioning the story as bull**** but there are others who said this was a terrible state of affairs.

If this was any other type of discrimination there wouldn't be a fraction of the outrage or media attention thus proving the existence of the gay mafia or "gaystapo" (as the poster so describes them) and proving his point.

In fact I'd bet my house if David Quinn was kicked out for saying grace before meals half of AH would whoop in delight.
Proving again that crusades only work one way in PC / right-on dogma land.

Samaris · 31-10-2015 05:30PM

To be honest, having read the whole thread through, the vast majority of people have doubted it, and those that have accepted it have tended to do so with caveats. If it happened as said, it shouldn't have. Which is not unreasonable, although there was a debate over that too.

There certainly hasn't been any gaystapo - tbh, there were more deliberately nasty comments against than for. I think the poster needs a far more heated thread than this to start seeing fabulous size nine jackboots stomping over him. As it is, it just sounds maniacally over-dramatic and a bit spiteful.

Azalea · 31-10-2015 05:34PM

arayess wrote: »

I liked it because for one I liked the comment. The way it stuck a finger at the right-on brigade. And the notion of "gaystapo" amused me cos it would annoy others here. I did think...I thought a lot about it and it amused me

Sticking up a finger at the right-on brigade, which people do utterly non stop on the internet - so brave. Liking it doesn't make sense, because the statement it makes is 100% untrue.

If this was any other type of discrimination there wouldn't be a fraction of the outrage or media attention

This is flawed because firstly there isn't much outrage or media attention at all in relation to this dubious letter - even the Gay Community News declined to comment. And it's simply untrue to say there isn't the same outrage over other cases of discrimination (e.g. travellers, black people, muslims, trans people).

Proving again that crusades only work one way in PC / right-on dogma land.

The anti PC brigade are EXACTLY the same, just in the opposite direction.
Can't stand either crowd myself - they're as bad as each other at times.

One eyed Jack · 31-10-2015 05:42PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Its just pissy people who are disappointed that homophobia isn't the status quo any longer

In fairness, the same could be said of GCN for publishing that letter trying to stir up shìt. What was the point in publishing the letter exactly?

Seriously, is there not enough homophobia in society that now they have to go making stuff up?

You're right, homophobia really isn't the status quo any more, and it's time the likes of GCN and Panto Bliss stop shìt stirring with this kind of crap and rants about checking themselves :rolleyes:

arayess · 31-10-2015 05:43PM

Azalea wrote: »

Sticking up a finger at the right-on brigade, which people do utterly non stop on the internet - so brave. Liking it doesn't make sense, because the statement it makes is 100% untrue.

it's actually not, there is a massive sensitivity in the media (including sites like boards) to gay people. The slights hint of an infringement against gay people results in outrage and a lynch mob far in excess of the levels of discrimination felt by gay people.

Azalea wrote: »

This is flawed because firstly there isn't much outrage or media attention at all in relation to this dubious letter - even the Gay Community News declined to comment. And it's simply untrue to say there isn't the same outrage over other cases of discrimination (e.g. travellers, black people, muslims, trans people).

there is though , 20 plus pages on here.
Joe.ie proclaiming "you must read this story"

The indo and other mainstays of irish media all running the story in the headline items on their sites.
I'd say there is plenty.,

Azalea wrote: »

The anti PC brigade are EXACTLY the same, just in the opposite direction.
Can't stand either crowd myself - they're as bad as each other at times.

indeed I agree. But boards is full of them. liberals who rave about equality but would relish any discrimination against David Quinn or Breda O'Brien ( for example) and they'd be proud of it too whilst proclaiming equality from the soapbox

wakka12 · 31-10-2015 05:59PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In fairness, the same could be said of GCN for publishing that letter trying to stir up shìt. What was the point in publishing the letter exactly?

Seriously, is there not enough homophobia in society that now they have to go making stuff up?

You're right, homophobia really isn't the status quo any more, and it's time the likes of GCN and Panto Bliss stop shìt stirring with this kind of crap and rants about checking themselves :rolleyes:

Well we don't know that this didnt happen yet, I don't think it did. But I think its really pathetic to go making something like this up, for whatever reason I don't know.

Azalea · 31-10-2015 06:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In fairness, the same could be said of GCN for publishing that letter trying to stir up shìt. What was the point in publishing the letter exactly?

Seriously, is there not enough homophobia in society that now they have to go making stuff up?

You're right, homophobia really isn't the status quo any more, and it's time the likes of GCN and Panto Bliss stop shìt stirring with this kind of crap and rants about checking themselves :rolleyes:

The hypersensitive crowd are the best thing that could ever happen to those with an irrational hatred of gay people - they give people like frostyjacks the ammunition to make up bullsh1t about gay people bullying and oppressing him. I agree, Ireland is not an homophobic kip at all (despite the fact some like to say it is) but still though, some of the anti gay stuff around the time of the referendum was... staggering (and I don't simply mean people who think only a man and woman should be able to marry - I don't see anything wrong with that view, even if I don't believe it; I'm talking about things like implying gay men are paedophiles, the sh1t about how we may as well let people marry animals, sex education will be about anal sex, etc). People were able to cry "bullying" when taken to task on this odious stuff though, simply because of the existence of hypersensitive types.

fin12 · 31-10-2015 06:08PM

its a horrible thing what happened to the couple but I Read in the paper that it was a waiter/waitress had asked them to leave, I feel sorry for that waiter/waitress because they were probably forced to do it by the manager which would have been a horrible position to be put in.

Would a waiter/waitress have permission to ask people to leave a restaurant without first getting permission form the manager, surely the issue was brought to the managers attention first before they were asked to leave???

Kev W · 31-10-2015 06:38PM

arayess wrote: »

In fact I'd bet my house if David Quinn was kicked out for saying grace before meals half of AH would whoop in delight.
Proving again that crusades only work one way in PC / right-on dogma land.

You know that a story you made up doesn't qualify as "proof", right?

One eyed Jack · 31-10-2015 06:48PM

Kev W wrote: »

You know that a story you made up doesn't qualify as "proof", right?

I'm sure they do, but that's why I imagine they used the words "I bet", rather than "I know". I certainly wouldn't want to take them up on that bet as it's quite likely I'd lose. It's certainly a very high likelihood it would happen given some posters particular distaste for religion and religious organisations, which during the discussions on here about the marriage referendum, they took a particular delight in expressing those views.

What seemed to go over their heads was the fact that just because a person is gay, doesn't preclude them from also being religious, nor does it preclude them from being a member of an organised religion, which had nothing to do with a referendum on civil marriage equality.

That doesn't stop some people though when a thread comes up with a sniff of religion off it, it's like catnip for 'em

Kev W · 31-10-2015 06:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm sure they do, but that's why I imagine they used the words "I bet", rather than "I know". I certainly wouldn't want to take them up on that bet as it's quite likely I'd lose. It's certainly a very high likelihood it would happen given some posters particular distaste for religion and religious organisations, which during the discussions on here about the marriage referendum, they took a particular delight in expressing those views.

What seemed to go over their heads was the fact that just because a person is gay, doesn't preclude them from also being religious, nor does it preclude them from being a member of an organised religion, which had nothing to do with a referendum on civil marriage equality.

That doesn't stop some people though when a thread comes up with a sniff of religion off it, it's like catnip for 'em

I honestly can't imagine anyone asking that a person saying grace in a restaurant would be asked to leave if someone complained. Because I sincerely don't see why anyone would. That said, if they did then they should get what they want, right? According to you.

31-10-2015 07:01PM

And as predicted straight back into the discussion. If only all life was that predictable, it would be easier. Though similarly boring.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could indeed quote posts all you want, but until you can quote a post where I stated that these places actually exist

Yes in multiple posts on this thread you claimed people go to certain places to specifically pay for the standards where PDA are not allowed. Not one but two users noticed this and asked you to name those places. You could not do it. So now you are back tracking to pretend you never implied it at all. But the posts are there for all to see. Bully for you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said anything about expecting waiters to deliver messages between tables. I simply make a complaint to my waiter that I am not enjoying my dining experience. I expect my waiter or waitress to do their job. That would be you protecting your interests if you were in the position of the waiter in that scenario. I would be acting in the interests of my employer, and attempt to reach a resolution between all parties.

And their job is to offer you a new table or the door in this context. Nothing more. Nor have you suggested what more you might expect I notice. The reason your entire narrative on this thread fails is that the customers in question - by simply holding hands - are doing nothing at all wrong.

You want a resolution to the discussion - then concede that point - and you will then stop being so wrong so often about what the waiters obligations to you or anyone else are. If something about your environment is bothering you at your meal - you can leave - or request a new table. Simple as that. The waiter has no further obligations to you - merely because someone else chooses to hold another persons hand in the room. Build a bridge.

Until you can suggest some other resolution that is warranted - or show why the waiter has any other obligations other than the ones I have listed - then I am happy to go around in circles as long as you are.

One eyed Jack · 31-10-2015 07:02PM

Kev W wrote: »

I honestly can't imagine anyone asking that a person saying grace in a restaurant would be asked to leave if someone complained. Because I sincerely don't see why anyone would. That said, if they did then they should get what they want, right? According to you.

Nope, no. That's not according to me at all. They would have every right to complain, they would have every right to expect that their complaint would be resolved to their satisfaction. Whether it would be or not, is another matter entirely.

Tbh if David Quinn was dining anywhere near me, I'd want him fcuked out just for being David Quinn!

I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I'm not that bad, plastic bag over his head would do so I wouldn't have to look at him :pac:

Kev W · 31-10-2015 07:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, no. That's not according to me at all. They would have every right to complain, they would have every right to expect that their complaint would be resolved to their satisfaction. Whether it would be or not, is another matter entirely.

Tbh if David Quinn was dining anywhere near me, I'd want him fcuked out just for being David Quinn!

I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I'm not that bad, plastic bag over his head would do so I wouldn't have to look at him :pac:

Pretty impressive cognitive dissonance there. You expect things to be resolved to the complainants satisfaction though you don't think they can expect things to be resolved to their satisfaction?

One eyed Jack · 31-10-2015 07:15PM

Kev W wrote: »

Pretty impressive cognitive dissonance there. You expect things to be resolved to the complainants satisfaction though you don't think they can expect things to be resolved to their satisfaction?

They can expect whatever they want, that doesn't mean they'll get it. I can expect whatever I want too, and that doesn't mean I'll get it. There's no cognitive dissonance there Kev.

fin12 · 31-10-2015 07:18PM

Who would have made the decision to ask the couple to leave? Would it have been the waiter or the manager?

wakka12 · 31-10-2015 07:37PM

fin12 wrote: »

Who would have made the decision to ask the couple to leave? Would it have been the waiter or the manager?

Unless the waiter was trying to find some way to get himself instantly fired that night then Id have to go with the manager

fin12 · 31-10-2015 07:40PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Unless the waiter was trying to find some way to get himself instantly fired that night then Id have to go with the manager

so the manager would have forced the poor waiter to do it.

Azalea · 31-10-2015 07:55PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm sure they do, but that's why I imagine they used the words "I bet", rather than "I know". I certainly wouldn't want to take them up on that bet as it's quite likely I'd lose. It's certainly a very high likelihood it would happen given some posters particular distaste for religion and religious organisations, which during the discussions on here about the marriage referendum, they took a particular delight in expressing those views.

What seemed to go over their heads was the fact that just because a person is gay, doesn't preclude them from also being religious, nor does it preclude them from being a member of an organised religion, which had nothing to do with a referendum on civil marriage equality.

That doesn't stop some people though when a thread comes up with a sniff of religion off it, it's like catnip for 'em

The more vociferous of the anti liberal crowd lose their sh-t similarly over atheism though - they take people's atheism REALLY personally. I don't mean getting annoyed over sneery arrogant atheists (they annoy the heck out of me too) but just people being atheist full stop.

Those extreme anti liberal folks nearly always tend to practise christianity too. I know it's an age-old thing for some christians not to be very christian, but the blatant hypocrisy and lack of self awareness still amaze me - especially when they're not dirt-poor people who grew up in the bible belt, who can be more forgiven for the hypocrisy due to their lack of education.

But anyway, these folks, looking down on people who aren't like them - making up sh-t about them and what they might do, trivialising genuine difficulties they encounter... is this not completely at odds with christianity? I mean, fair enough if they don't agree with homosexuality, transgender, people being atheists or non christian, but their religion commands that they still treat people with decency.

Also, Jesus Christ seems like he was totally what would be described by some as a "SJW" today!

I think too that the thing of every anti liberal being vehemently against abortion is sometimes purely because abortion is part of "the liberal agenda" and "the feminists are fans of it" rather than any real concern about the unborn. They have precious little concern about the born, unless they tick several rigid boxes.

arayess · 31-10-2015 09:15PM

Kev W wrote: »

You know that a story you made up doesn't qualify as "proof", right?

well, their reaction to the story does tell a lot.
whether it be true or not really doesn't matter .

Samaris · 31-10-2015 09:20PM

arayess wrote: »

well, they're reaction to the story does tell a lot.
whether it be true or not really doesn't matter .

Yes...but it wasn't anyone's reaction. It was a made-up scenario with a made-up reaction and then that was used as proof for a pre-determined outcome.

Scientific it really ain't.

Little CuChulainn · 31-10-2015 09:25PM

I find it hard to believe that a couple who are comfortable enough to engage in PDA in the middle of a restaurant deal with this kind of situation be sending an anonymous vague letter to a magazine.

arayess · 31-10-2015 10:22PM

Samaris wrote: »

Yes...but it wasn't anyone's reaction. It was a made-up scenario with a made-up reaction and then that was used as proof for a pre-determined outcome.

Scientific it really ain't.

actually what you describe is the basis of many a social experiment which is then produced in a science journal (or the daily mail) as fact.

Samaris · 31-10-2015 11:21PM

arayess wrote: »

actually what you describe is the basis of many a social experiment which is then produced in a science journal (or the daily mail) as fact.

It absolutely is not.

What you would find is;

1. I want to test this idea. What is the null hypothesis? Alright, I have this outcome or this outcome. How best to test it?
2. This way will test it fairly and may have either outcome (or possibly an unforseen third result). My biases cannot affect this test.
3. Result.

What happened above was;
1. This is my preconcieved idea. This is what must be so. How can I prove this outcome is the truth?
2. I have made up a possible scenario and answered it in a way that fits my own ideas. I don't need proof, my biases cannot be wrong!
3. Result.

I hope you can see the difference between a scientific and unbiased methodology and codology.

Arbiter of Good Taste · 01-11-2015 10:12AM

fin12 wrote: »

so the manager would have forced the poor waiter to do it.

There is no proof whatsoever that this even happened, ever mind in the way that this highly unbelievable letter to the paper lays out. How are you not getting this?

Kev W · 01-11-2015 10:15AM

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

There is no proof whatsoever that this even happened, ever mind in the way that this highly unbelievable letter to the paper lays out. How are you not getting this?

"Would "does not mean" did". How are you not getting this?

jack presley · 01-11-2015 10:28AM

The Indo finally realising that the whole thing might never have happened.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/doubts-cast-over-gay-snub-story-34158848.html

Valetta · 01-11-2015 11:18AM

jack presley wrote: »

The Indo finally realising that the whole thing might never have happened.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/doubts-cast-over-gay-snub-story-34158848.html

Successful trolling wins the day.

Gay couple humiliated after being asked to leave Dublin restaurant

Comments