social and prejudice that their couple kisses in public, because they came from homosexual couples, are reprimandable for being more outrageous for public tranquility, security and morals, than kisses by heterosexual couples. 107. The two juridical persons linked as passive subjects of the action emphatically denied the intention to discriminate for reasons of the homosexuality of the couple that was kissing. However, there are several elements of proof such as physical evidence, arguments of part or subrules of the right to equality without discrimination, show the opposite to such affirmations. Since in both cases, the one of the shopping center and the one of the surveillance company, the aim to apply in general the norm that forbids any couple to exchange romantic kisses as a way to protect the rights of children, families and majoritarian groups who attend the shopping center, was before all an indirect discrimination which would only affect homosexual couples, as it occurred in the case of Jimmy Moreno and Robbie Pérez. 108. On one hand, is what can be appraised on the video records (pages 32-44, CD attached f. 44, original booklet), on what happens with other heterosexual couples in the mall. These, as can be clearly seen, are hugging and kissing in open spaces of the shopping center, in clear daylight, without being approached by its security staff so they won’t “exceed” in their behavior. Such evidence shows, by contrast, that in the case of Mr. Jimmy and Mr. Robbie there was an unequal treatment and that the inequality did not respond to the expressions of affection, but because who were performing them were two men38. 40. Likewise, in 2019 the same court declared because of an action for protection filed by a woman against a liquor store, who claims that the administrator of such establishment complained to her for holding hands and kissing her couple of the same sex in such venue. On this matter, the court emphasized: 47.The expressions of affection that the claimant and her couple manifested with a kiss and when they held hands, do not conform facts legally sanctioned by authorities, since not even the defendants qualified them as such, since they did not imply acts of a high intimate, sexual or obscene content, forbidden by the Legislator, which would have enabled the administrator of the place, to demand compliance of basic norms of behavior, by means of proportionate measures as a reprimand would be. In this sense, kisses and other manifestations of affection such as holding hands, facial caresses and tender words, between couples who love each other, either heterosexual or of a diverse sexual orientation, or those given between parents and children, are the most genuine expression of the human nature, of the exteriorization of feelings which arise upon a specific life choice, supported by the exercise of their individual liberty, their dignity, their free development of personality and el right to not being disturbed in their most intimate spheres of existence, which allows the to perform them in public and not in a hidden or concealed manner. There is no concrete legal restriction for the exercise of these individual liberties, which is why the administrator, in the subject matter, could not impose any kind of limitation, restriction or interference to the visitors of the establishment which provides services to the public in general, related to the exercise of their fundamental rights, either for heterosexual couples or of a diverse sexual orientation, since such manifestation did not imply disregarding any norm of Police, did not alter public order, nor did it affect juridical assets guarded by the administrator of the store. 52.The Chamber regards that in this case there is proof of the discrimination suffered by the claimant because of her diverse sexual orientation, since the action by the of the administrator was motivated by such condition, criterion that this Corporation has considered as suspicious, which also lacks all justification because through it the aim was not to reach a goal constitutionally urgent and, on the contrary, the reproach to the manifestations of affection of the diverse couple constituted a breach to fundamental rights of human dignity, to the free development of the personality and intimacy, invoked by the party, produced an unequal treatment, since the analysis of the evidential material in the casefile, allows to conclude that the clerk did not perform the same reproach on other heterosexual couples and finally, configured a detriment, in the exercise of superior guarantees set forth in the 38 Constitutional Court of Colombia. Sentence T-909/11 of December 11, 2011. 13