A Georgia couple has cried foul over treatment at a Savannah mall.
Victoria Torres and Tuyen Nguyen recently took Torres’ five-year-old nephew to a play area owned by Treehouse Adventures. As they watched the child frolic, Torres put her arm around Nguyen and began to read a magazine. That’s when things got out of hand.
A daycare chaperone approached the couple and ordered them to stop, claiming that their behavior made the children uncomfortable. The argument quickly escalated.
“There were plenty of couples there,” says Nguyen. “But they decided to talk to us about it. We were just sitting there reading a magazine.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“It was not only embarrassing, it was hurtful,” Torres adds. “You’re just being yourself…it’s never happened to me before.”
Nguyen and Torres eventually left after a verbal argument with the chaperone.
“To explain to my nephew what had happened and why people do that and why you’re not accepted everywhere you go… it’s hard,” says Torres.
Ben Saborio, owner of Treehouse Adventures, denies that homophobia played a role in the couple’s treatment. Rather, the playground employs a strict no-PDA rule, with a sign posted near the door explaining affection must stay at the “PG-level.”
He also admits that he ordered the unidentified chaperone to confront the women, fearing a “language barrier.”
“That was a really really tough situation,” says Saborio. “I really struggled. It wasn’t easy. But I welcome anybody. I don’t hate anyone.”
“Maybe I didn’t handle it in the right way. My wife wasn’t here. I was afraid to approach them and say something wrong that would be offensive.”
In the wake of the incident, Yelp has exploded with negative reviews of the playground and accusations of homophobia.
Meanwhile, Treehouse Adventures issued a statement on its official Facebook page apologizing for the “unfortunate incident” and calling it an “isolated case” and then denying they ever kicked the couple out.
“We understand that we were caught on an unfortunate incident involving claims of discrimination against the LGBT community,” the statement reads. “This isolated case is hurting our business review and reputation.”
The statement continues: “Then the chaperon reported to management (Ben) that a couple was being inappropriate; that particular chaperon asks them to stop, and they decided to leave and blame our business. In no way these individuals were ask to leave by management. This was a decision made by them.”
Torres and Nguyen have not yet decided if they will file a discrimination lawsuit.
Related: Deli owner accused of scolding gay couple for kissing says he wasn’t being homophobic
Brian
Another day, another misleading headline.
Also, a discrimination lawsuit is a bit much. But I do believe the couple wasn’t overdoing it with the PDA. Sitting on the sidelines of a kiddie park really isn’t prime makeout territory.
Also also, language barrier? Really?
djmcgamester
One had the arm around the shoulders of another while reading. That’s not making out. I also have my doubts that any kid was uncomfortable. It’s other adults who had the problem.
Cam
So the place supposedly says that affection must be “PG”.
Well the couple says one of them had an arm around the other. That is G rated.
Higher than PG usually means nudity and the suggestion of a sex act. So it sounds like the business isn’t being honest here. They weren’t “Caught in an unfortunate incident”, but the passive voice attempt to dodge responsibility is telling. Children playground areas would normally have cameras to keep children safe, if the couple was lying they would have already released footage.
brooklynbobby
I found this on an NBC affiliated news website. There is surveillance video. Maybe it helps a little:
Saborio could not share the surveillance video with News 3 because children are in the video.
I’m sure the news station would not have put the video on their site or on camera but at least they could have made more informed and made unbiased reportage had they been allowed to view it.
Kangol2
Here’s the BS, homophobic line: “their behavior made the children uncomfortable.” Such crap. The kids at that place weren’t thinking about this same sex couple or any other, they were there playing and having a good time. It was the homophobe owner Saborio who had a problem with the female couple, and singled them out and harassed them. Oh well, maybe he’ll learn for the future, if his business can stay open.
SnakeyJ
These stories always seem questionable. If the attendant did come up to them and tell them that there’s a no PDA policy, then the women should’ve just stopped and let their nephew have fun. But of course everyone get so triggered they started an argument. Not everything is a fight. Not everything is offensive. Not everything is homophobic. These stories, especially on Queerty, are very one sided and have an agenda. Get all the facts before you form an opinion. Too many of these stories end up being false or misleading.
jjose712
Not everything is homophobic but you surely took the side of the owner when what they described is not pda at all.
And i highly doubt that none of the straight couples held hand or a peck, but when straights do that people barely noticed.
And the owner comment about maybe being a language barrier just because they were latina and asian is all kinds of racist (even if that wasn’t his intention)
SnakeyJ
How is it racist to assume they might not understand English? And from the story above we don’t know if he was worried about HIS linguistic skills or those of the women. To be racist means he must actively and intentionally not like these women because of their race. He didn’t. If anything he was overly cautious so that his intentions were not misinterpreted. The point i’m trying to raise is that these stories need context, and more information. Too much is missing to make an informed opinion and too many people say it’s homophobic or racist just because an article is written with that kind of slant.
niles
No. 1, we realize that you are a right wing troll, so just stop pretending otherwise. No. 2, we realize that you are a right wing troll.
No. 3, stfu.
Brian
Wow, you are REALLY reaching here, I hope you don’t strain yourself.
Both sides in the article tell mostly the same story. The only thing in question is the level of PDA that made the owner send the employee over in the first place. The women said it was just an arm around the other, the owner never said what they were doing, just that he had a sign up saying keep things PG. Which an arm around each other certainly is
So to disbelieve this story, you have to believe that the women were at bare minimum having a big makeout session, if not something even more inappropriate.
The likelihood of that is pretty slim, especially since the owner didn’t even dispute it. So if you’re going to make up an analysis to fit your agenda, at least use a little logic instead of spewing stupidity.
And yes, using language barrier as an excuse for what seems to be an Asian and Hispanic woman is racist. AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE FROM THE ARTICLE, the owners English is fine.
SnakeyJ
@niles: Please try to form an argument if you don’t like someone’s opinion. Instead of just calling me names and telling me to “stfu”. By doing what you did, it shows that you can’t defend your opinion.
@Brian: you’re right i’m making assumptions, as are you. I can’t clearly see the owner’s English is fine. You’re assuming the PDA was just a peck on the cheek or a hand-holding. My point was that we do not have all the facts and when someone is taking a business or person to task, then we need all the facts. The article makes us assume certain things, when really it should be filling in the details. It’s almost like a hit piece and we shouldn’t be out to ruin someone’s livelihood when we don’t have all the facts. I find it hard to believe the women were “… just sitting there reading a magazine” when being approached. that does not make any sense.
Brian
Your debate skills wouldn’t hold up in a 7th grade debate club. Niles was right, you really should STFU.
SnakeyJ
@Brian. Excellent points. Your debating skills are at an 8th grade level and you stumped me.
Cam
In other words, you try to say don’t jump to conclusions, right after you blame the couple and defend the business.
Juanjo
First, the mere fact someone is Hispanic or Asian does NOT mean there is a language barrier. There are millions of Americans born in the UA who are of Asian or Hispanic descent. Assuming that someone who LOOKs different is not going to be able to communicate in English is highly problematic. As for your comment that the owner would have to be knowingly racist but wasn’t, how do you know that. The days of racists out and out announcing that they are discriminating against someone because of race, ethnicity, national origin or skin color are pretty much gone. This couple points out that they were the only couple approached. The owner says HE did not approach them because he was “afraid” of a language problem. That context you are so adamant about is raising its head right there.
Second, the term PDA as used by this business is highly problematic since I am aware of no one who considers holding hands or putting an arm around someone as being inappropriate. The couple specifically states what they were doing and the owner does not contest it.
Third, the “we do not have enough information” argument is a form of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. You are claiming there is no context to support the other side and therefore you argue on behalf of the owner’s position. If there was no context then neither you nor anyone could come to any conclusion. There is context and there is evidence. you have simply decided which evidence to believe.
Jared MacBride
The owners’ CYA message on Facebook doesn’t ring true. They blame everything on some anonymous chaperon, who I suspect may have been the real troublemaker here. Kids don’t get upset about these PDA things: they may giggle about them or think it’s “adults” being yucky, but I guarantee no kid told this “chaperon” they felt unsafe.
As for the possible lawsuit – why does everything have to be a lawsuit? Just don’t return.
Mack
I tend to agree with you. Since the owner didn’t say what the PDA was we only have the couple’s word to go by. Maybe they were only sitting there with an arm around the shoulder. I know of right wing bigots who object to less than that, they would object to touching. People need to get a life and leave the other people alone. This is Georgia with more bigots and racists per square inch than most states. But it doesn’t generate a lawsuit. Do what you’re doing on social media that’s hurting them more.
Dani
This is BS TBH, now a kid isn’t truly disturbed by any of this. A kid can understand that love comes first, not gender. Homophobics are actually worse than kids. It’s not like a kid came up and complained that they were bothered by them, no it’s the parents. Truly disturbing.
Brian
It wasn’t the parents, it was the owner.
one more thing
I’m sure the kids went up to the chaperone and said they felt uncomfortable, Lol, what a joke!
jcoberkrom
Hard to be sure what really happened, but. YELP removes all reviews not submitted by actual customers so the only one left up would be the one left by the couple themselves and thus story over.