PDA

View Full Version : Email response from Starbucks


IrishPirate
02-02-2012, 12:14 PM
Got this in response to my email thanking them for supporting gun owners:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

Thank you for your feedback regarding Starbucks' policy on open carry laws.

At Starbucks, we deeply respect the views of our customers and recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve. Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.

As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input with their public officials. We are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society and believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.


Warm Regards,

Matthew L
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
800 STARBUC (782-7282)
Monday through Friday, 5AM to 8PM (PST)


just wondering if it sounds a little "on the fence" to anyone else. I'm glad they support RTC laws, but it sounds like the also support some gun control measures. Makes me think they're biding their time to see which side to throw full support too. This seems like it's probably a generic letter that they send to anyone who says anything (pro or con) about gun laws. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong though, or this email just doesn't paint the full picture....

what do you guys think?...

(and to be clear, i didn't mention anything about open carry in my email, just thanked them for supporting law abiding gun owners by not caving to pressure from anti gun groups)

Ubermcoupe
02-02-2012, 12:18 PM
I think you're right and I believe that is a politically motivated message in order to appeal to both sides - a romney approach if you ask me :p

All jesting aside, I'm glad they allow (it to some extent) versus places like peet's (as much as I like their coffee...) that don't.

Bhobbs
02-02-2012, 12:20 PM
I take it as them being neutral on the issue.

DVSmith
02-02-2012, 12:20 PM
This was no doubt crafted by their legal and PR groups to be as neutral as possible in an effort to avoid taking sides. After all, their mission is to provide the best possible return for their stockholders, not support or oppose gun issues.

Maestro Pistolero
02-02-2012, 12:22 PM
I take it as them being neutral on the issue.

This ∆.

leadstorm
02-02-2012, 12:32 PM
Of course it's neutral. Why should they throw their full support to any side?

They'd be perfectly happy if Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Brady were all in the same line for venti mocha lattes...

CCWFacts
02-02-2012, 12:32 PM
just wondering if it sounds a little "on the fence" to anyone else.

They're not "on the fence", they are staying out of an issue that's none of their business. They're complying with local laws and not taking an issue. They are a private business which exists to make a profit for their owners, not to take sides on any political issue. I wish gun owners would understand and respect Starbuck's stance on that. Remember, Starbucks operates in dozens of countries and every community in the US. They can't start taking positions on things. They have to go along with local laws and culture and focus on making their delicious over-burned coffee and starchy over-sweetened baked goods and 1000+ calorie coffee-themed fructose shakes.

Eljay
02-02-2012, 12:34 PM
I think they're trying to stay the heck out of it, which is perfectly reasonable.

woods
02-02-2012, 12:45 PM
I think they are on our side but are not outwardly political as to not put of any business.

If they didn't care or were anti you would see no gun signs and policy citing peoples feelings and public safety.

berto
02-02-2012, 12:46 PM
Starbucks exists to make money. Neutrality helps them continue to make money.

stix213
02-02-2012, 12:51 PM
I think they're trying to stay the heck out of it, which is perfectly reasonable.

This ^^^

A much better response than Guns R Bad M'Kay that has come from a few other places (where I refuse to shop)

REH
02-02-2012, 12:53 PM
Starbucks exists to make money. Neutrality helps them continue to make money.

Bingo...............They sell in states both pro and anti gun. Business first.

GrizzlyGuy
02-02-2012, 12:57 PM
You received the same form letter response that they would send to anyone writing them about guns, whether pro or anti. Naturally the form letter is neutral. It doesn't make business sense for them to take a side on this issue, so that form letter response is likely an accurate statement of their position.

Bulleh
02-02-2012, 1:00 PM
It may not make us feel like "HURRAH. Starbucks supports our 2a rights!" But, more importantly, they don't seem closed minded on the matter.

From a multinational company perspective, swaying in either direction could mean a potential loss of customers. This is probably the best type of response you can expect from a large corporation. Starbucks main focus isn't politics, it's to make coffee and money.

Rossi357
02-02-2012, 2:11 PM
You would probably get the same answer if you sent one asking why they never banned open carriers.
Not sure what you want from them. They are in the coffee business, not the gun business.

Steve1968LS2
02-02-2012, 3:27 PM
I'm ok with their response.. they are neutral and "will obey the laws".. They want to sell coffee to everyone, not just gun owners or antis..

Thier job is coffee and tasty snacks.. not advocating for our passions.

Sunday
02-02-2012, 3:40 PM
Of course it's neutral. Why should they throw their full support to any side?

They'd be perfectly happy if Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Brady were all in the same line for venti mocha lattes...That is the way it should be. Starbucks seems fair.

Oceanbob
02-02-2012, 3:43 PM
One thing for sure: A group of Lawyers wrote that.


I support StarBucks..( I call them 5 bucks for fun)

dieselpower
02-02-2012, 3:45 PM
I take it as them being neutral on the issue.

if they were neutral on the issue they would not prohibit open carry where it isn't illegal. They are only allowing open carry because the law says they have too.

let me put this another way...

In the 43 States that don't allow discrimination against minorities, we serve all our customers the same. In the states without those laws, Black people and minorities either have to use the back door or not come into our store at all.

We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve. Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.

hows that read to you....:cool2:

JaMail
02-02-2012, 3:51 PM
if they were neutral on the issue they would not prohibit open carry where it isn't illegal. They are only allowing open carry because the law says they have too.

let me put this another way...

In the 43 States that don't allow discrimination against minorities, we serve all our customers the same. In the states without those laws, Black people and minorities either have to use the back door or not come into our store at all.



hows that read to you....:cool2:



the law isnt forcing them to allow open carry, they can ban open carry anytime they want to on their premises.

I respect the policy makers at starbucks because they are not folding under the pressure of the brady types and are staying neutral and going by state laws, not crafting their own regulations for each state they operate in, which they could just as well do.

even if they dont come out and say they are pro gun, or even anti, they are staying neutral.

Gray Peterson
02-02-2012, 3:59 PM
They're not "on the fence", they are staying out of an issue that's none of their business. They're complying with local laws and not taking an issue. They are a private business which exists to make a profit for their owners, not to take sides on any political issue.

That's not true. Starbucks signed on to a local businesses joint letter to the Washington State legislature in support of the marriage equality bill currently under discussion.

Also, Starbucks is being targeted with boycotts by anti gun groups, but nearly all of the boycotters, if their Facebook comment pages are to be believed, seemed to be people who don't drink Starbucks coffee anyway. They seem snooty types...

They are also being targeted with boycotts by anti gay groups for supporting of the bill...

This suggests an overall pro liberty approach.

You can tell already I'm going to be a more frequent Starbucks customer....

jorgyusa
02-02-2012, 4:09 PM
As most others have concluded the Starbucks response is fine given their business model.

I plan to take my sweetheart of 40 years to Starbucks (and definitely not Peets) on Valentines day and tell the clerk that I am a gun owner and appreciate their non-obstructionist view of my rights.:)

IrishPirate
02-02-2012, 4:15 PM
From a multinational company perspective, swaying in either direction could mean a potential loss of customers. This is probably the best type of response you can expect from a large corporation. Starbucks main focus isn't politics, it's to make coffee and money.

this is true, it's much better than most other form emails i've received in the past. This one is actually topic specific. I didn't expect them to reply back with a "hell yeah brother, GUNS AND COFFEE FTW!!!", but i guess i thought they were a little more Pro gun, though that really only came from reading things online...

if they were neutral on the issue they would not prohibit open carry where it isn't illegal. They are only allowing open carry because the law says they have too.

let me put this another way...

In the 43 States that don't allow discrimination against minorities, we serve all our customers the same. In the states without those laws, Black people and minorities either have to use the back door or not come into our store at all.



hows that read to you....:cool2:

this is what i was worried about and why i started the thread. Anytime a business walks the fine line you have to wonder what the real motivation is behind it. If it's just money, pure and simple, then fine. businesses gotta do what they gotta do. But not every business keeps their profits and politics separate, and Starbucks HAS taken sides on certain issues which has cost them some customers, as Gray points out below....

That's not true. Starbucks signed on to a local businesses joint letter to the Washington State legislature in support of the marriage equality bill currently under discussion.

Also, Starbucks is being targeted with boycotts by anti gun groups, but nearly all of the boycotters, if their Facebook comment pages are to be believed, seemed to be people who don't drink Starbucks coffee anyway. They seem snooty types...

They are also being targeted with boycotts by anti gay groups for supporting of the bill...

This suggests an overall pro liberty approach.

You can tell already I'm going to be a more frequent Starbucks customer....

I definitely support them too. They are active in a lot of communities as well. They support Deaf social events all over the country and allow the Deaf community to gather at their stores, whether buying something or not, and just socialize. (something i highly recommend going to if you want to learn ASL or are interested in Deaf culture)

I guess i was just hoping for a more definitive stance on the issue, rather than a neutral/compliant one....but i'll take neutral/compliant over anti any day!!!

Rossi357
02-02-2012, 7:39 PM
let me put this another way...

In the 43 States that don't allow discrimination against minorities, we serve all our customers the same. In the states without those laws, Black people and minorities either have to use the back door or not come into our store at all.
hows that read to you....:cool2:

Is this a non sequitur?

CCWFacts
02-02-2012, 7:52 PM
That's not true. Starbucks signed on to a local businesses joint letter to the Washington State legislature in support of the marriage equality bill currently under discussion. ...

This suggests an overall pro liberty approach.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Well, then I'm glad they are taking an overall pro-liberty approach and we should support that.

You can tell already I'm going to be a more frequent Starbucks customer....

I would be, except I can't drink their coffee :(

Munk
02-02-2012, 8:02 PM
It doesn't just sound neutral to me, it sounds capitalist. Why alienate a group when there's no legal basis for doing so?

Shenaniguns
02-03-2012, 9:45 AM
They're not "on the fence", they are staying out of an issue that's none of their business. They're complying with local laws and not taking an issue. They are a private business which exists to make a profit for their owners, not to take sides on any political issue. I wish gun owners would understand and respect Starbuck's stance on that. Remember, Starbucks operates in dozens of countries and every community in the US. They can't start taking positions on things. They have to go along with local laws and culture and focus on making their delicious over-burned coffee and starchy over-sweetened baked goods and 1000+ calorie coffee-themed fructose shakes.



Exactly, I can't see why the OP expected them to be anything but neutral on this. It makes no sense for them business wise to take either side like some other anti companies choose too yet many of us still begrudgingly use their services.

IrishPirate
02-03-2012, 11:28 AM
Exactly, I can't see why the OP expected them to be anything but neutral on this. It makes no sense for them business wise to take either side like some other anti companies choose too yet many of us still begrudgingly use their services.

because they take sides on other issues which alienates certain customers, so why not this one? Anyways, i didn't expect a definite pro-2a stance, but I thought they WERE more pro-2a than the response suggests. Just wanted to guage other people's feelings were on the issue. I know they have to make money, but if that's the case, why address the issue at all? they can easily say they are not taking part in it at all, but they don't.

and it actually does make good business sense to take sides. The Brady's have about 50,000 members at best, and there are about 50,000,000 gun owners at worst in the US....which side would you want to please more??

ENVYGREEN
02-03-2012, 2:32 PM
Neither

JNunez23
02-03-2012, 2:48 PM
Wow, that's well written! lol

dogtrainer
02-03-2012, 3:46 PM
Starbucks does not need gun carrying customers when they can have the police shoot someone. See the link below about a customer killed at a Starbucks in the bay area:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/27/BAGQM8VIN41.DTL

Thelaststand
02-03-2012, 4:40 PM
I take it as them being neutral on the issue.

This is what gun owners should be asking for. We don't need companies to be pro gun because the issue is an issue between voters who are people; however, we don't need companies being anti gun.

Starbucks holds the best possible view on the gun issue.

IrishPirate
02-04-2012, 9:50 AM
I'm really suprised how many people think it's better for someone to be neautral than be pro-gun, but decry anti-gun companies. Seems like a double standard.

"you're either with us, or your against us.....but it's cool if you just want to be neutral too".

yes, it's better than being against us, but so many people thinking it's better than being pro gun is alarming.

I agree, it makes business sense, but how is wanting them on our side a bad thing???

Shenaniguns
02-04-2012, 11:21 AM
I'm really suprised how many people think it's better for someone to be neautral than be pro-gun, but decry anti-gun companies. Seems like a double standard.

"you're either with us, or your against us.....but it's cool if you just want to be neutral too".

yes, it's better than being against us, but so many people thinking it's better than being pro gun is alarming.

I agree, it makes business sense, but how is wanting them on our side a bad thing???




The bottom line is that the anti's approached them to ban firearms in their establishment and they publicly chose to abide by the state and local laws instead of appeasing them like so many companies do without really looking into the argument for either sides. I give them quite a bit of respect for not picking their side. You choose to look at the glass half empty, I choose half full.

Welcome to the real world...

You may want to direct your focus on those that do support anti's:
http://gunowners.org/fs0302.htm

socal2310
02-05-2012, 6:06 AM
I'm really suprised how many people think it's better for someone to be neautral than be pro-gun, but decry anti-gun companies. Seems like a double standard.

"you're either with us, or your against us.....but it's cool if you just want to be neutral too".

yes, it's better than being against us, but so many people thinking it's better than being pro gun is alarming.

I agree, it makes business sense, but how is wanting them on our side a bad thing???

They have taken a side on the issue, but in as unobtrusive a manner as possible. Anti-gun groups have asked them to post "No Guns Allowed" signs in their stores. Starbucks said no. Starbucks as a corporation would have been legally within its rights to post signs and have employees tell open carriers who ignored the signs to leave, even if those signs didn't carry the force of law.

As far as their willingness to take a firm stance with regard to other hot-button issues like homosexual marriage - bear in mind that they don't particularly care which way overall public opinion runs, but which way their customers' opinions run. I think it's a pretty safe bet that their clientele is relatively affluent and sophisticated, exactly the sort of people who support something that has become a cause célèbre for white, middle class moderates. What is surprising is that gun owners are well enough represented among those people that Starbucks seems wary of offending them.

Ryan

FatalKitty
02-05-2012, 8:59 AM
there is nothing wrong with being neutral.

Just because they don't fight for our rights doesn't mean they don't want us to have them and visa versa. I imagine all they care about are lawful customers and $$

there is no reason a coffee shop should have a position on the 2ndA.. NONE