Mall Apologizes To Lesbian Couple For Kicking Them Out For No Good Reason

A lesbian couple who were tossed out of a North Carolina mall for being so bold as to kiss and hug in public view met with management to listen to an apology.

CNN reports the apparent act of bigotry occurred Saturday, when a security guard told the couple “nobody wants to see that here.”

The president of the mall management company said his security guards will be participating in seemingly long-overdue sensitivity training.

Lesbian couple ejected from mall meet with property managers [CNN]
(Thanks, Alexa!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. RandomHookup says:

    What’s the over/under for the number of disemvoweled comments we will have in this thread?

    • CTrees says:

      ‘m gssng qt lt!

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      None. Consumeristers (?) I feel are generally open to same-sex equality. As they should. Because gay people are consumers, too!

      Here’s hoping everyone proves me right.

      • danmac says:

        I agree…even the right-winged wingnuts on this site tend to be of the libertarian variety.

        • bigTrue says:

          Not always. I once made a comment along the lines of having the opinion gay people shouldn’t have the same rights today is the same as saying blacks shouldn’t have had them years ago and a VERY prominent consumerist commenter went off on me about it.

          It’s just that the regulars who have right wing opinions know they aren’t the majority here and are smart enough to keep it out of the comments for the most part. There is no logical reason to say gay people shouldn’t have every right that straights do, but some people aren’t using a logical base for the thought process. Anything but full rights to everyone is bigotry, plain and simple.

      • runswithscissors says:

        We treat everyone the same here. Whether gay, straight, black, white, etc – we OP blame em all without discrimination.

      • gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* says:


    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      There’s going to be at least 30 different comments with people insisting that gay people shouldn’t be “shoving it our faces that they’re gay” despite the fact that straight people make out in public all the time.

      Bare minimum is 20 comments disemvoweled.

      • mythago says:

        Don’t forget all the comments about
        – how there should be a lot more of this in public, hurr hurr
        – “It’s only OK if they’re hot”

    • speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

      The only comment of mine in this thread likely to be disemvoweled is the one where I set out my detailed, comprehensive opinion of the bigoted mall staffers.

    • AlphaLackey says:

      Thrty-svn nd hlf

  2. George4478 says:

    >>when a security guard told the couple “nobody wants to see that here.”

    There’s a large body of film out there that leads me to believe that somebody would want to see that there….

  3. NightSteel says:

    In my opinion, there’s only one part of a sentence in that article that matters: “We apologized that the women were offended…”

    “We’re sorry that you took it that way.” Yeah. You stay classy, mall jerks. Of course, we don’t get to see or hear the actual apologies, so we don’t know if they were any better, but that statement is a weasel statement.

    The article could use some more detail, like maybe the ladies’ response to the apology (if they have one).

    • danmac says:

      Yes, the classic “non-apology apology”.

    • RandomHookup says:

      I liken that to letters that include “we’d like to apologize”. I then see the implied “but we really can’t…”

    • dolemite says:

      Yup, that stuck with me as well. “Well, we apologize that you are overly sensitive.”

    • Julia789 says:

      Their response was very classy (read it in another article) the ladies said they were pleased to open a discussion with the mall management and discuss diversity, etc. They felt a discussion and getting to know each other as individuals was better than a simple apology.

      • AlphaLackey says:

        But of course this doesn’t matter to the politically correct hyper-sensitive types who are incensed the mall failed to correctly word their apology on a minor grammatical level, actual intent be damned.

        • runswithscissors says:

          I think Julia is saying that the ladies response to the “apology” was very classy, not that the Mall’s apology was classy. Because it does sound insincere, not just a gramatical quibble.

          “I’m sorry you took it that way” is a non-apology in almost every single instance.

          • Julia789 says:

            Yes, thank you for clarifying. I was stating that the statement/response by the ladies was classy.

            The response by the ladies was about opening a discussion and getting to know each other as human beings instead of stereotypes, and meeting in person rather than exchanging jabs over the media.

            I do not care for the mall’s wording of “sorry you were offended” rather than the more appropriate “sorry for our actions.” I feel it is an underhanded insult.

        • mythago says:

          Language means something. If you can’t tell the difference between “I’m sorry” and “I’m sorry you’re offended,” you need to brush up on your rhetorical skills.

      • Julia789 says:

        *Note, I am speaking of the ladies response to the incident being classy, not the mall. Sorry for any confusion.

  4. Darrone says:

    “nobody wants to see that here.” I assume all couples kissing were thrown out then? If so, i’d be alright with this…

  5. Mike says:

    Seriously I have seen plenty of straight couples sucking face and I wished they would leave and get a room. From the article it sounds like these two were not too bad, cuddling, touching is fine, whatever. The article quoted one of the women as saying they were being affectionate but not inappropriate. The douche bag with a badge probably could not get over himself and ignore it.

    But the older I get the less stomach I have for teenagers making out in malls. They are the worst offenders. I guess it is the only place they have to make out. I don’t care if you a gay/straight, black/white whatever, I don’t want to see you swap spit in public…ewwww.

    • isileth says:

      Exactly my thought.
      A few years ago there was a couple of teenager on the train I took to get to work who spent their time making out as if this was their last day on earth.
      I hoped they would get a room and be done with it.
      Had they been a same sex couple, I would have thought the same.

  6. obits3 says:

    “Do you remember a time when women couldn’t vote and certain folk weren’t allowed on golf courses? Pepperidge Farm remembers.” – Family Guy

  7. Groanan says:

    At the Great Mall, in San Jose, in the parking lot of my car, with my heterosexual relationship girlfriend, I was approached by mall security telling us that we had to leave as I was kissing her goodbye before she left the car to go to work. They have a standing no-makeout policy.

    The same sex relationship might have been inconsequential to how the security reacted.

    • Mike says:

      I fully support no making out in public policy at malls, not matter what orientation.

    • goodpete says:

      If they had a no-making-out policy, then the mall would have been correct to stand by their policy and not issue an apology. The mere fact they issued an apology (even if it was a “sorry you were offended”-style non-apology) indicates that what the guard did was not backed up by mall policy.

    • Mom says:

      Seems doubtful, since the mall gave their non-apology apology. If the “policy” weren’t based on orientation, they’d have just told them it was policy.

    • snowmentality says:

      The women say they were holding hands, kissed once briefly on the lips, and one of them pecked the other on the cheek. Cameron Village management hasn’t disputed any of this — since they could have easily defended themselves by saying the couple was rounding second base in public, I’m inclined to believe that the PDA was actually that mild. Holding hands, cheek peck, and 1 brief kiss =/= making out.

    • msbask says:

      There are places in America with No Kissing rules? That’s inconceivable to me, but then again, I’m not really offended by seeing people being affectionate towards each other… gay/straight, standing/sitting/walking, hugging/kissing/touching… it’s all good.

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        Well, grade schools have rules against public displays of affection but I think if any other place has a rule like that it’d be due to people getting out of hand.

      • Galium says:

        They have a no face kissing rule in the US capitol building. Kissing is only allowed for another part of the body.

  8. shadowhh says:

    Quote “Breedlove is a gay activist, but she says the incident wasn’t planned.”

    Ok, I have to wonder now how far the little bit of affection was.

    Once I see that a person is an activist, it usually means they were going as far as possible to make the news.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      Because there’s no way that an activist does anything for any reason, even kiss their partner, without an ulterior motive?

      • shadowhh says:

        How did this get on CNN again?

        There ya go.

      • Mom says:

        In North Carolina, if two women are holding hands, they’re activists.

      • shadowhh says:

        No, Because there was an apoogy, and sensitivity training over the issue Then she stil went to CNN anyway. Thats why.

        • Conformist138 says:

          Maybe you should look into the story because, no, FIRST they reported it to the ACLU and it was reported around a bit. A few days later, they got the apology and the story of the apology ran.

        • Rectilinear Propagation says:

          No, you said “Once I see that a person is an activist…” not “Once I saw that they went to the news after getting the apology”

    • goodpete says:

      There are a lot of gay activists out there. I think you’d be hard pressed to find an openly gay person who was not an activist to some extent.

      That being said, it really doesn’t matter. It was wrong for them to have been asked to leave simply for being affectionate. If they were being inappropriate, the guard should have asked them to tone it down, not to leave the shopping center.

      I think it’s far more likely that their general “gay-ness” was why the guard asked them to leave. And that’s not right.

      • 99 1/2 Days says:

        Wrong ,most gay people aren’t activists. Most live their lives quietly like other people do.

        • Liam Kinkaid says:

          He said “to some extent.” Most of us are activists, even if it’s just to the ones around us that need a little bit more education on the topic.

        • banmojo says:

          do you openly act on your deeply held convictions? well, then, good sir, YOU are an activist :^))

          seriously though, I am conservative (fiscally at least) and I think this was wrong wrong wrong, almost suably wrong (is suably a word even?) Those mall cops tried to make a nice lezzie couple feel bad about themselves – borders on bullying me says!! Bigotry will NOT be tolerated (recognize that bigotry can be directed against Christians and conservatives too, and be very very careful when you go on your libbie rants about ‘those types’, mmm’kay?)

    • Bye says:

      How many guys do I have to frell before I can get the title “gay activist” too?

    • kajillion123 says:

      Hahaha, you’re a shit person.

  9. dragonfire81 says:

    A mall is private property, does that not mean security can kick anyone out for pretty much any reason? Last I checked the bill of rights only applies to public entities. I agree kicking them out was stupid but it was their right to do it.

    • Hoss says:

      People tried kicking out all blacks from their businesses — didn’t seem to work

    • danmac says:

      The Civil Rights Act applies to public places like shopping areas. That’s why it’s not okay for a soda shop to refuse to serve black clientele. Of course, people might argue that sexual preference is not a protected class.

      Still, it’s pretty douchy behavior to selectively discriminate like that.

      • Mike says:

        The Civil Rights act argued that segregated lunch counters hurt interstate commerce. If a black person were travelling through the south they could not eat at certain places, stay at certain hotels, etc. Thus, the Civil Rights act made sure that people of colour could not be denied such services because Congress had an interest in interstate commerce.

        Making out in public is different. Black/white, gay/straight, making out in public does not affect interstate commerce. Now if they were denied a hotel room because they were gay, THAT would be a serious problem.

        I am assuming that the rent a cop in this case only kicked the lesbian couple out, and no one else that day. Now what would be interesting would be if this were the tenth couple he kicked out for too much PDA, and the nine others were straight. Then this case would not even matter.

        • danmac says:

          Making out in public is different. Black/white, gay/straight, making out in public does not affect interstate commerce.

          It should be noted that the couple were at a shopping mall, which it could be argued involves a form of interstate commerce (as much as a soda shop does, at least).

          Also, my assumption, which may be completely incorrect, is that the security guard probably ignores most PDA and had a bee in his bonnet because it involved lesbians. If he ejects all making out couples he sees, then his behavior is completely reasonable (in the context of civil rights discrimination).

          • cluberti says:

            “Breedlove, who is the co-director of Southerners on New Ground, says she asked the security guard if they would be asked to leave if the two were a man and a woman and that the guard replied “no.”

            “Breedlove says a few people have asked her if she and her girlfriend planned the incident. She says the confrontation was not a stunt.”


        • EllenRose says:

          If you pay attention to Supreme Court rulings, everything is interstate commerce. Just try growing something illegal or taxable in your back yard for personal use, and find out how much the government has to say about it.

      • dreamfish says:

        Can we please put an end to use of the term ‘sexual preference’? No-one chooses their sexuality and it’s phrases like that which suggest gay people don’t deserve protection from hatred and discrimination.

        “Hmm, I think I’ll be queer from now on – sounds like a larf”.

        • danmac says:

          Got it…next time I’ll use the term “sexual orientation.” That way, no one will accuse me of inadvertently promoting hatred and bigotry.

        • user452 says:

          I choose my sexuality. I believe in free will and freedom of choice.

    • heybebeh says:

      IANAL, and I am also not citing anything to back up my case, but a mall and other private spaces aren’t 100% private for the purposes of certain types of speech and certain actions.

    • JiminyChristmas says:

      Sorry, but you are completely misinformed on civil rights laws. Yes a shopping mall is private property but it is also the type of place defined by the Civil Rights Act as a public accommodation. The Bill of Rights doesn’t actually have anything to do with it.

      A public accommodation is basically any entity that does business with the general public: malls, retail stores, restaurants, buses, taxis, airlines, etc. It is illegal for any public accommodation, regardless of whether or not they are a private business, to discriminate against a member of a protected class.

      Gays and lesbians are not a protected class under federal civil rights law. However, they may be protected under some jurisdiction or law that applies to this particular Raleigh, North Carolina shopping mall. Ultimately, it’s conceivable you could be correct in saying the mall had a right to kick these women out for being lesbians, even though your rationale is faulty.

    • NickelMD says:

      So by your thinking they should also be able to make it a whites-only mall.

      Think again.

  10. backinpgh says:

    There’s a lot of things I don’t want to see at the mall. Screaming children, hipsters, Hot Topic wannabes, teenyboppers, Abercrombie and Fitch…nobody is standing up for ME!

  11. idx says:

    Maybe they were ugly.

  12. AngryK9 says:

    I wonder what it would be like to live in a world where everyone minds their own business instead of spending all of their time getting uptight about what someone else is doing.

  13. Andy S. says:

    Cameron Village is not an indoor mall, but an outdoor shopping center. A bunch of shops with walkways, parking lots, and plenty of restaurants with outdoor cafe areas, most of which with views into areas that are not under the purview of the shopping center’s rent-a-cops. Makes me wonder how the security guard would have reacted had the women been standing on a public-property sidewalk at the perimeter of the shopping center, still in view of all of the poor, hapless shoppers, rendered powerless to look away?

  14. raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

    Whoa, I used to get loaned from my home store to a location in Cameron Village. That place is like a maze. It was very much like an outdoor mall, with the parking mixed in, and I hated getting asked to help out at the store there. I never noticed an organized security presence there though.

  15. msbask says:

    About ten years ago, my daughter worked at a large supermarket chain. One day, she kissed her girlfriend goodbye in front of the store when an old woman walked up. The woman told them that they were disgusting and called the police. I honestly don’t even remember if the cops came, but I do remember how upset she was by the whole experience.

    • bigTrue says:

      One major difference in thinking between conservatives and liberals I’ve noticed:

      Liberals wants everyone to be free to live the way they want, for the most part. Conservatives pretty much think it should be they are free to live the way they want as long as everyone else lives the same way as well. Nobody on the liberal side cares that the old woman was offended, but the old woman is only happy if everyone lives by her idea of good living.

      It’s sad. Being free doesn’t mean you’re free of being offended, but somewhere along the line that’s what a lot of people started thinking.

      • mythago says:

        I care if she was offended. She certainly has a right to be, but free speech and all. The daughter was within her rights to tell the old bag to either come out of the closet or die in a fire.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        It goes both ways. A lot of environmentally-inclined people I’ve encountered considered themselves very liberal ….until you get to issues like global warming, environmentally-safe trash bags, etc. and then it’s all about how “you’re killing the planet with your car; why can’t you drive a hybrid” and you are maligned for not living as green as they think you should be.

      • PBallRaven says:

        “Liberals wants everyone to be free to live the way they want, for the most part.”

        WHOOP! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! , man, that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while.

      • Doubts42 says:

        and there is where perspective comes in. You are obviously speaking of social conservatives. but liberals are just as bad, wanting to control what people say, how they say it, what they eat and ho they conduct business.
        the real difference is motive, Social conservatives have concrete beliefs that certain things are wrong/evil/sinful and want to ban them for everyone. liberals believe that the masses are too stupid to fend for themselves and need to be told what to do and how to do it for their own good.
        both approaches are unpalatable.

    • AlxFherMana says:

      This makes me want to cry. Sigh.

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      i’d love a transcript of THAT phone call.
      police: “kissing? two women kissing? look lady, as soon as i catch all the murderers, burglars and car thieves out there, i’ll come over and stop the kissing, okay?”

      • anewmachine615 says:

        Either that or “Two women? Kissing? I’ll dispatch the fire department, cause that sounds HOT”

  16. Mcshonky says:

    since the guards are outsourced anyway just hire a gay friendly security company.

  17. ThunderRoad says:

    As a red-blooded american male, I want to see “that” kind of stuff.

  18. catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

    i would be more embarassed but i already have the good sense not to go to the yuppie village that the mall is located in.
    i would like to point out that this is the same area where the writhing sewer slime was found last year

    • webweazel says:

      UGH. I remember that video and story from a while back.
      WARNING! If you’ve never heard of this, do NOT click on the link if you A) are eating B) don’t have a cast iron stomach C) have a hair-trigger gag reflex.
      Hell, if you can’t watch brain tumor surgery on TV while eating spaghetti and meatballs, stay away!
      I repeat: UGH.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      While most of the stores there are useless, they have a good Harris Teeter! Always the best in clearance items.

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        eh, yeah i used to date a guy who lived a few streets over from cameron village and didn’t have a car so i ended up doing a lot of late night grocery shopping there on my way home from his place. it was ok. but most of my grocery shopping now takes place at sams or one of the asian or hispanic markets. i haven’t been in a harris teeter in over a year and i get to lowes foods about once every two months for a particular brand of coffee.
        it’s not worth it for me to even go down there to the library, even if is pretty and shiny and big.

  19. Bladerunner says:

    Guard should be fired, period. Then the rest of them should have to go through “sensitivity training”, just in case they have similar ideas but haven’t crossed over the line into “unacceptable use of their authority” territory.

    But kudos for the ladies, who stayed classy.

  20. Pax says:

    Said security guard needs to be pink-skipped yesterday. No excuses, no second chances, no continued employment. And no good references, either.

  21. MarvinMar says:

    It’s all Kay’s fault!!