# The ultimate irony--Gay bashing attack at the Stonewall Inn **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 5, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112 "2010-10-05T13:27:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/21 "2010-10-05T20:51:54Z")
[QUOTE=descamisado] Besides the fact that I’m wondering how a 17-year-old got into a bar, they had to know that the Stonewall was a gay bar, it being famous and internationally known and all, and on a block in the West Village with several gay bars. [/QUOTE] This is the first thing I wondered when reading the story. In a sad irony, the Stonewall could get into some serious trouble as a result of the gaybashing. ---
**Author:** ![Leaking\_Boot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e68b1a/32.png) [@Leaking\_Boot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaking_Boot)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/22 "2010-10-05T21:48:32Z")
Let’s go back to the original subject for a second; gay bashing in a gay bar - not really the ‘ **Ultimate Irony** ,’ is it? It’s certainly where I’d go to bash gays. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/23 "2010-10-05T21:55:19Z")
THIS lSN’T FUCKING IRONIC ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/24 "2010-10-05T21:58:00Z")
I was wondering when this thread would turn to the meaning of “irony”. I’m amazed it has taken this long. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/25 "2010-10-05T22:00:55Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > In point of fact, however, a hate crime resembles a baseball pitch – it ain’t anything until it’s called that by the person having the right to judge. While the law, as **Merneith** demonstrates, defines what constitutes a hate crime, whether act X is in fact a hate crime is up to the jury or to the judge in a bench trial, or to prosecutorial discretion as to whether to charge a hate crime, etc. No. Of course the crime is not a crime until it’s a conviction, etc etc. But that’s not that only way we can approach this. We can discuss whether the facts, as reported, are legally sufficient for a hate crime. Obviously each fact has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury or judge. There may be other facts, aggravating or mitigating, that we don’t know. But what we can do is say: based on what we know right now, are the facts sufficient for a jury to reach a conviction. If the jury believed every fact that’s been reported, would it be enough for a conviction? That was the question I believed **Morgenstern** asked. And in fact we can see it’s a key question. If the proposed law quoted by **Merneith** , were an actual law, then the answer to the factual question is clearly ‘yes.’ But that law doesn’t yet exist. So the question becomes a bit more interesting. And I do not agree it can be confidently answered ‘yes,’ as **tdn** did, without some thought. > [@](#): > > I believe that “we” – meaning Dopers – have a right to form an opinion as to whether something constitutes a hate crime, hopefully with reference to the law in a given jurisdiction – but remember that in some states, gay-bashing is not a hate crime because sexual orientation is not there a protected class. IMO it still “is” a hate crime on the basis that even though the prevailing statute does not include it, the prevailing attitude among this Internet community is that it should be so included. Who the hell cares? You seriously think that in the wake of a news story referring to a specific legal charge, when someone asks, “But is that language alone strong enough to make it a hate crime?” that he’s asking some amorphous bullshit about what this Internet community “feels?” Absurd. Ridiculous. And I can’t believe you don’t see that. > [@](#): > > I would also like, having answered you fairly and I think substantively, to see your response to this comment of **Merneith** ’s, with which I tend to agree: > > > [@Merneith](#): > > > > “I” think, that, as a “lawyer”, you probably have “better means” to satisfy your “interest” in actual “fact” than pouncing on random statements on an internet message board, but, since this seems to be your “preferred” method, then it’s “probably” because “the “Gotcha!” moments when someone expresses an opinion not completely substantiated to your lawyer’s eagle eye to the level expected in a court of law, and you can jump them on it” is your “actual” goal. Since you asked, and all. I am not a New York lawyer. When I asked that question, I had no idea what the law in New York was. I thought there were two or three possibilities: [ul] [li] **tdn** was bullshitting[/li][li] **tdn** has some specific knowledge of the law as written[/li][li] **tdn** has some specific knowledge of factually similar prior cases[/li][/ul] So I didn’t leap up and say, “Bullshit!” I asked, without rancor or snark: > [@Bricker](#): > > Could you provide a bit more detail on why you’re so sure? And your response was to attck me. > [@](#): > > Remember, if you will, that I did say there was some value in your challenging A rush to judgment on the basis of only the facts available – I just find it tiresome, whenever there is a topic involving allegation of criminal misbehavior, your instant move to play Gotcha! on the basis of whether we as yet have all the facts. Done a bit less snarkily, with a concession that it seems that way now but may not prove out when all the facts are in, it could be a valuable part of a discussion. “Less snarikly?” Again, what I said was: “Could you provide a bit more detail on why you’re so sure?” How is that remotely snarky? > [@](#): > > At present, it means that anyone expressing an opinion about a news story involving alleged criminal behavior can expect to be held by you to the criminal-trial standard immediately on the story breaking. Wrong. As i explained above and will repeat for emphasis: my standard is, “If the alleged facts are all taken as true, does it constitute a crime?” If that’s close to anything, it’s about the same as a probable cause standard, which certainly out to exist if here’s been an arrest. > [@](#): > > (It is also fascinating that when the alleged miscreancy is political chicanery, you are Johnny-on-the-spot with the Gotcha! comment when the alleged perpetrator is a Republican, and nowhere near as willing to do the same when it is a Democrat. What a load of shit. Show me those two cases, where I treated Democrats and Republicans differently. Show me. I extend exactly the same standard, always. Show me where I didn’t, or retract that claim. Since you asked, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/26 "2010-10-05T22:28:10Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > In which case I guess that it’s a question for a jury to decide if the act (assault & burglary … or larceny, maybe, not burglar?) was committed and/or the victim selected because of the defendant’s beliefs about homosexuality and/or homosexuality. I would think that the defendant’s using the slurs indicated something about the defendant’s beliefs. But what do I know? This is what I’m questioning. I don’t know if I agree that it’s a question of fact for the jury to resolve. I’m leaning towards the idea that it’s legally insufficient. If the jury’s only evidence was, “The accused said, ‘Get away from me faggot! I don’t like gay people. Don’t pee next to me,’ and shortly thereafter demanded money and assaulted him when he refused to provide it,” then could a reasonable jury conclude that the victim was chosen because of his sexual orientation? This kind of situation is precisely what that proposed law of yours is intended to remedy. It allows the jury to make the presumption. Absent that, can a reasonable reach the conclusion? Here’s why I’m leaning towards ‘no.’ A fact must be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This means that the fact-finder must eliminate any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. Where conflicts in the evidence exist, the fact-finder is entitled to disregard any or all parts of the conflicting evidence. But what the fact-finder can’t do is create evidence where none exists. Here, that fact-finder can find that the accused said “'Get away from me faggot! I don’t like gay people. Don’t pee next to me.” But how does that prove that the victim was chosen for his sexual orientation? In other words, if the punks were prepared to rob anyone, and didn’t wait until a gay man was the target, it’s not a hate crime. In _People v Diaz_, the accused shouted gay slurs while attacking the victim and told police that decided to take out his anger on a gay man. That clearly is sufficient. In _People v. Uthman_, the accomplice and girlfriend testimony established that the accused pallned to vandalize a synagogue because of animus towards Jews. In _People v. Assisi_, the accused had admitted he burned a synagogue because he was angry that a Palestinian child had been shot by the Israeli Army. In _People v Fox_ the accused used gay chat rooms to convince gay men to meet him; he showed up with two accomplices to rob them. Note that his motive was robbery only – he did not injure the men. But it was undisputed that he targeted gay men “because it was easy to get them to agree to meet.” He asked the court to set aside his hate crime conviction because his motive was just robbery, not injury. But because he was clearly picking his victims because they were gay: > [@](#): > > The defendants implicitly recognize that their conduct falls within the plain language of the hate crimes statute and seek to avoid its implications by asking this Court to redefine a hate crime in a manner that would remove them from the scope of the statute. They claim that the Legislative findings set forth in Penal Law §485.00 alter the definition of a hate crime and additionally require the People to prove that the crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred. As the defendants assert that there is no evidence that they were motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred towards Sandy when they attempted to rob him, they claim the hate crimes charges must be dismissed. > > The Legislative findings, however, do not require proof of anything other than the intentional selection of a victim because of their “race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation.” > . > . > . > Finally, the defendants assert that they should not be charged with hate crimes as their decision to rob Sandy was motivated only by their desire to obtain money and drugs. This argument is without merit. The hate crimes statute is premised both on the intent to commit a specified offense and on the intent to select a victim of that offense because of that victim’s “race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation[.]” Penal Law §485.05(1)(a). Thus, for a hate crime to be charged in this case the statute requires both an intent to attempt to forcibly steal property, which the defendants admit, see Penal Law §110/160.00, and an intent to select the robbery victim because of that victim’s sexual orientation, which the grand jury evidence supports. See Penal Law §485.05(1)(a). Simply stating that their motivation was limited to their desire to obtain money and drugs, therefore, does not take the defendants out of the ambit of the hate crimes statute. So we can see here that what’s critical is the evidence that the victim was chosen because he was gay. And there has to be some positive evidence to support that. I can’t find a single conviction on such thin evidence as we have here. Obviously, if it turns out he said some other things during the assault, or under police questioning, then it becomes a slam dunk. But now… I don’t know that I see it. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/27 "2010-10-05T22:44:29Z")
It’s totally ironic. You left out the part of the verbal exchange where the gay man hit on his attacker saying “I’ve got ten thousand spoons but all I need is a fork.” And we all know what fork stands for. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/28 "2010-10-05T22:45:03Z")
> [@](#): > > ". . . . he excused himself and went to use the bathroom. > > Inside, “two men were waiting there,” he wrote. > > “I began to pee at the adjoining urinal, at which point one of the men asked me if I was gay,” he wrote. “I responded by chuckling and saying, ‘Where are you, buddy?’” > > He answered me by saying “In a gay bar. Don’t pee next to me, f----t.” **Bricker** , how do you assess the above exchange, plus the immediately following assault and robbery in light of _People v Fox_? Even if somehow he wasn’t in that particular place on purpose, _i.e._, didn’t know he had wandered into a gay bar (a place where plentiful gay men can be readily found to victimize), it does appear Carver was asked if he was gay, before they proceeded to assault and rob him. [Updated story with above quote from victim.](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/10/05/2010-10-05_gay_bash_victim_benjamin_carver_replays_stonewall_attack_on_blog_writes_he_never.html) ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/29 "2010-10-05T22:53:16Z")
So, as I see this, the opinion here is that the hate portion of this crime rests on the thug using the f----t word _one time_. Am I missing something else? ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/30 "2010-10-05T22:54:27Z")
deleted. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/31 "2010-10-05T23:09:30Z")
You know, I can’t speak for blacks where the word n----r is concerned, but speaking as a gay male I’d actually rather see it written “faggot” than “f----t” when it’s being quoted. The redacting gives it more power. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/32 "2010-10-05T23:16:45Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > So, as I see this, the opinion here is that the hate portion of this crime rests on the thug using the f----t word _one time_. Am I missing something else? Two straight guys go into the most famous gay bar in the world, and hang out in the bathroom. When a guy comes in alone they ask him if he’s gay, and when he answers that he is they call him a faggot and try to intimidate him into giving them money. And when he refuses and tries to leave they jump on him and punch him. There’s much more here than just calling someone a faggot. The entire situation strongly suggests that they were deliberately seeking out a confrontation with a gay man and either humiliate or hurt him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/33 "2010-10-05T23:20:23Z")
> [@descamisado](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > ". . . . he excused himself and went to use the bathroom. > > > > Inside, “two men were waiting there,” he wrote. > > > > “I began to pee at the adjoining urinal, at which point one of the men asked me if I was gay,” he wrote. “I responded by chuckling and saying, ‘Where are you, buddy?’” > > > > He answered me by saying “In a gay bar. Don’t pee next to me, f----t.” > > **Bricker** , how do you assess the above exchange, plus the immediately following assault and robbery in light of _People v Fox_? Even if somehow he wasn’t in that particular place on purpose, _i.e._, didn’t know he had wandered into a gay bar (a place where plentiful gay men can be readily found to victimize), it does appear Carver was asked if he was gay, before they proceeded to assault and rob him. > > [Updated story with above quote from victim.](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/10/05/2010-10-05_gay_bash_victim_benjamin_carver_replays_stonewall_attack_on_blog_writes_he_never.html) That’s a critical difference, I think. It’s much more difficult now to escape the notion that the identify of the vicitm as gay was intended. So based on that, I’d answer the original question, “No,” but armed with this additional level of detail, I’d say THAT is sufficient, if believed, to find guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/34 "2010-10-05T23:24:32Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > So, as I see this, the opinion here is that the hate portion of this crime rests on the thug using the f----t word _one time_. Am I missing something else? No. The exchange: “Are you gay?” “Heh heh – do you know where you are?” “A gay bar.” Is a key aspect. That, combined with the faggot comment, supports an inference that sexual identity was the factor in the attack. The attacker acknowledges he’s in a gay bar, which vitiates the alternate inference that he simply chose the location at random. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/35 "2010-10-05T23:27:08Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@Morgenstern](#): > > > > So, as I see this, the opinion here is that the hate portion of this crime rests on the thug using the f----t word _one time_. Am I missing something else? > > Two straight guys go into the most famous gay bar in the world, and hang out in the bathroom. When a guy comes in alone they ask him if he’s gay, and when he answers that he is they call him a faggot and try to intimidate him into giving them money. And when he refuses and tries to leave they jump on him and punch him. > > There’s much more here than just calling someone a faggot. The entire situation strongly suggests that they were deliberately seeking out a confrontation with a gay man and either humiliate or hurt him. My only gripe with that summary is the assumption that because Stonewall is the most fanous gay bar in the world, we can impute that knowledge to a couple of thugs… who, I’m guessing, don’t play eagerly along at home when “Jeopardy” airs. But we can substitute proof of their actual knowledge in the latest version of the attck, where they admit they know they’re in a gay bar. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/36 "2010-10-05T23:30:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Morgenstern](#): > > > > So, as I see this, the opinion here is that the hate portion of this crime rests on the thug using the f----t word _one time_. Am I missing something else? > > No. The exchange: > > “Are you gay?” > > “Heh heh – do you know where you are?” > > “A gay bar.” > > Is a key aspect. That, combined with the faggot comment, supports an inference that sexual identity was the factor in the attack. The attacker acknowledges he’s in a gay bar, which vitiates the alternate inference that he simply chose the location at random. I can certainly see see that point. I’m just not real comfortable with inferences when it comes to criminal convictions. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/37 "2010-10-05T23:43:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m just not real comfortable with inferences when it comes to criminal convictions. Juries are asked to infer the intent of defendants ALL the time in criminal trials. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/38 "2010-10-05T23:47:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I can certainly see see that point. I’m just not real comfortable with inferences when it comes to criminal convictions. Intent is almost always a matter of inference. Juries are always told, for example, that a person may be presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his actions. That allows us to criminalize acts without needing detailed confesssions to convict someone. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/39 "2010-10-05T23:51:00Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I can certainly see see that point. I’m just not real comfortable with inferences when it comes to criminal convictions. And remember too that the inference is not mandatory. The jury MAY infer – the record supports the inference. It doesn’t compel it. This, in other words, is where **Polycarp** thought we were way back when he started talking. This is the point at which we can say, “Yes, it’s a hate crime,” knowing full welll that the jury may find differently or that additional facts may come to light to change things. But with what we know now, and assuming the jury believed it all, there is _legally sufficient evidence_ to convict on the hate crime. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112/40 "2010-10-06T00:07:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The exchange: > > “Are you gay?” > > “Heh heh – do you know where you are?” > > “A gay bar.” > > Is a key aspect. That, combined with the faggot comment, supports an inference that sexual identity was the factor in the attack. The attacker acknowledges he’s in a gay bar, which vitiates the alternate inference that he simply chose the location at random. Huh? While i agree that it is reasonable to infer from the whole incident that sexual identity was a factor in the attack, i don’t really understand why this new and slightly altered set of details is any more supportive of such an inference than the original set of details. Why is the particular scenario that you’ve laid out here so compelling, where the other was not? All you’ve demonstrated here is that reasonable people can reasonably differ on what constitutes a reasonable inference. Which sort of negates the fairly black-and-white line you’ve been trying to suggest is possible in cases like this. The law itself might be very specific on the criteria that need to be met for a hate crime, but when one of the factors in its specificity is jurors drawing a reasonable inference, the whole notion of objectively correct and incorrect decisions is basically out the window. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimate-irony-gay-bashing-attack-at-the-stonewall-inn/556112.md?page=3)