PDA

View Full Version : Very well written article about Starbucks


SFCRangerDoc
09-18-2013, 11:34 AM
http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

I dont blame starbucks for not wanting to be in the middle of things. I also applaud them for not outright banning guns in their stores. They request people leave them at home (which is completely within their right to) but will not force people with guns out of their stores and will continue to serve them. I feel the letter was the most classy way possible for their company to say Keep us out of this please. I hate to say it but overly zealous people from both sides caused this and really put SBUX in a bind. I will continue to go to starbucks and only if they outright ban guns in their stores will I consider not going.

ixta70
09-18-2013, 12:01 PM
Wow the pictures in the article... Overkill on making a point.
But yes very nicely written letter from Starbucks.

Hoooper
09-18-2013, 12:01 PM
yep, pretty much. I thought their position was clear when their response to the "appreciation day" was always that they were not involved in organizing or carrying out such a day. When they said that, its clear that they werent out looking to be in that position. It was all ludicrous anyway, they were no more actively pro-gun than a store serving someone speaking Swahili is pro-swahili

SFCRangerDoc
09-18-2013, 12:02 PM
also, it not like it matters much here in CA anyway...we can't open carry no matter how you look at it

IVC
09-18-2013, 12:05 PM
The article says:

Good Job. Well done. We have “educated” them and their “liberal” customers who don’t particularly share our views and affinity for all things that go bang.

The decision is in, and it is not in our favor. Starbucks has said that they do not wish to see “guns as a part of the Starbucks experience.” We have educated them to the point that they would prefer we just go away…or at least leave them out of it. They have said that they will not ask anyone open-carrying to leave, nor will they post signs regarding the policy. Frankly, I wish they would. I hope the “activists” have the intestinal fortitude to respect their wishes…but I’m not holding my breath based on how they have acted in the past. Calling for a boycott is weak-sauce, too.

Replace "liberal" with "conservative", "guns" with "gays" and you'll find that very few would support Starbucks (or Chick-fil-a).

At some point people get tired of those whose "sensibilities get offended" implementing ban after ban just "to make us all go away." This has been the method used against any group that later ended up being in "protected class." It's messages like this that support bigotry under the guise of sensibilities.

I'm sure black community was upset that Rosa Park had to draw attention by sitting in the front. I'm sure someone said "she's finally done it, now they are asking us to go away. We at least used to be able to sit in the back."

I'm no fan of open carry, but I love the irony of "tolerance medicine shoved down one's throat" coming back to those who invented it and "offending their sensibilities."

broofy
09-18-2013, 12:32 PM
To a large degree, I agree with the sentiment that just because I can doesn't mean I should...willfully making people uncomfortable to make a point has a high probability of backfiring.

That said, if it were a bunch of flamboyantly dressed gay people kissing at a Starbucks in Atlanta and it made people uncomfortable, everyone would recognize it as discrimination to say "just don't do it where I have to look at it"...because that's still homophobia. If i were a flamboyant gay man, I have the right to be me in public whether you like it or not, or whether it makes you "uncomfortable". Your right to "comfort" stops at my civil liberties.

Now, weapons are bit different from being gay (or some other "protected" class) - one can't stop being gay, nor should one have to, but I do have choices about where and when it is appropriate to be armed. Responsible people make those choices thoughtfully. I would not insist on carrying into the children's wing of a hospital or a courthouse or the white house steps because "I can" is outweighed by "that would be dumb, inflammatory, and unnecessary".

So, it's a dilemma...

RuskieShooter
09-18-2013, 12:37 PM
The title of the article says it all...

This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things

-Ruskie

mag360
09-18-2013, 1:00 PM
Their CEO (Live on Cavuto) just said he wants concealed carriers to follow this policy unless they are military or police.

a1c
09-18-2013, 1:26 PM
Their CEO (Live on Cavuto) just said he wants concealed carriers to follow this policy unless they are military or police.

But if you carry concealed, how will anybody know?

Lots of business owners, if pressed, will say the same thing.

fr33domfightr
09-18-2013, 1:38 PM
But if you carry concealed, how will anybody know?

Lots of business owners, if pressed, will say the same thing.


Is that like "staying in the closet," if you're gay?

If the CEO asked you to respect their policy, the proper thing to do is respect their policy, not sneak around them.

Hoop
09-18-2013, 2:14 PM
People who were going to Starbucks with their rifles weren't protesting anything they were exercising a legal right that they have (or in Cali's case, had). People like Rosa Parks were breaking an unjust law. Big difference.

Also, the Starbucks CEO didn't say "...we don't want your business" just that "...we'd PREFER you carried concealed but we'll still serve you if you don't". I mean, they could have spouted off a bunch of pro-gun-control nonsense and declared that all Starbucks will now be "gun free" because of a little "Gun Free Zone" sign in the window too you know.

Starbucks seems to be acting fairly, all things considered.

Now, for all the Quasi-Libertarians who freak out about everything...CA banned OC awhile back. Want to be like Rosa Parks? Start open carrying and get arrested for it. Put your money where your mouth is rather than just complaining about something the Starbucks CEO said, or didn't say...

IVC
09-18-2013, 3:34 PM
Now, weapons are bit different from being gay (or some other "protected" class) - one can't stop being gay, nor should one have to, but I do have choices about where and when it is appropriate to be armed.

Attack on gay started with religion, went to defining it as a mental illness, then to saying it's a choice and the consensus these days is that it's wired.

At the time it was considered a "choice," it was still wrong to discriminate against those who (supposedly, at that time) made that choice. Similarly, whether carrying a gun is a choice or not, it's the choice that *each individual* should make (remember, left is always pro-choice), not someone else on behalf of the individual. Further, the choice itself has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong to exclude those who choose to carry.

IVC
09-18-2013, 3:38 PM
People who were going to Starbucks with their rifles weren't protesting anything they were exercising a legal right that they have (or in Cali's case, had). People like Rosa Parks were breaking an unjust law. Big difference.

They were protesting an unfair and often unavailable option to carry loaded and concealed. If CA was a shall-issue state, I'd agree with you.

As a side issue, I only condone open carrying as a political speech. In states that are shall-issue, it's mostly unnecessary bordering on immature. Probably as annoying as people texting all over the place.

mavericksun
09-18-2013, 4:16 PM
Starbucks is a business and the CEO is accountable to the shareholders. If the CEO came out and openly stated that guns were banned, the backlash would be bad and would affect their bottom line. If they set policy where their partners had to kick out people carrying guns and there were violent confrontations, the company would be liable. Starbucks maintain in their memo that guns are not allowed in their shops and that is their official position. They just choose not to force their partners to force people out and cause more negative publicity. This is just a ploy for them to be anti-gun and not create more problems for themselves. You can go on defending their actions and stating that they are not anti-gun but the reality is that they are anti-gun. This is just more demonization of guns by the anti-gun crowd and the more you buy into it, the more people are going to feel it's ok to demonize guns. This is why "gun control" laws pass in CA easily, because it's seen as ok to demonize guns and the people who carry them. As for the acceptance of conceal versus open carry, it's like saying it's ok for you to be <insert your belief here> as long as you don't display it(jewelry, bumper stickers, etc.) and practice your beliefs out of public sight. It's just condoning the actions of hate groups.

SPROCKET
09-19-2013, 5:25 AM
One look at the pictures in the article says it all. I wouldn't want these idiots on my premises either. I'm amazed Starbucks hasn't posted all it's stores in response to this jackassery. Though I suspect that soon enough one of the "I've got a right!" jokers is going to pull a stunt that will force their hand.

Things remain legal and/or permitted until they are abused and misused by enough people to create a problem. Is there a legitimate time and place for open carry? Absolutely. Is that time and place a pointless ego masturbation event at the coffee shop? Hell no.

SkyStorm82
09-19-2013, 5:32 AM
I can see it now....

"Hi. Welcome to Starbucks. What can I get started for you?"
AM I BEING DETAINED!!!?? Hey joe, start recording these jackboot baristas.

CalBear
09-19-2013, 5:55 AM
I find it hard to fault Starbucks in this situation. I'm not pleased with the decision, but I understand it. Once people started using Starbucks as the meeting place of choice for long gun OC events, once they were co-opted into the role of OC champion... it was hard to see them maintaining their existing policy.

It sounds like they got lots of customer complaints re guns. It's one thing to CCW or OC while getting a coffee, it's another to get a group of guys together, strap on ARs, and camp out at Starbucks for a few hours to cause as big a scene as possible. They're a publicly traded company, and they don't want to be used in that manner.

SFCRangerDoc
09-19-2013, 7:42 AM
I find it hard to fault Starbucks in this situation. I'm not pleased with the decision, but I understand it. Once people started using Starbucks as the meeting place of choice for long gun OC events, once they were co-opted into the role of OC champion... it was hard to see them maintaining their existing policy.

It sounds like they got lots of customer complaints re guns. It's one thing to CCW or OC while getting a coffee, it's another to get a group of guys together, strap on ARs, and camp out at Starbucks for a few hours to cause as big a scene as possible. They're a publicly traded company, and they don't want to be used in that manner.


I agree with this completely...just because you CAN doesn't mean you should. and when you go out just to prove a point...well...what can you expect. It's a choice we have to be gun owners. It's also a choice we have to be responsible and respectful. Not everybody is comfortable with guns...and they don't have to be! But if i go ahead and shove it down somebodys throat that i CAN AND WILL just to prove a point, we're no better than the anti-gun liberals. This is how they WANT us to act so that they can go SEEEEE look at those crazy nutjobs.

One look at the pictures in the article says it all. I wouldn't want these idiots on my premises either. I'm amazed Starbucks hasn't posted all it's stores in response to this jackassery. Though I suspect that soon enough one of the "I've got a right!" jokers is going to pull a stunt that will force their hand.

Things remain legal and/or permitted until they are abused and misused by enough people to create a problem. Is there a legitimate time and place for open carry? Absolutely. Is that time and place a pointless ego masturbation event at the coffee shop? Hell no.

also this ^^^

Ninety
09-19-2013, 8:38 AM
http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

I dont blame starbucks for not wanting to be in the middle of things. I also applaud them for not outright banning guns in their stores. They request people leave them at home (which is completely within their right to) but will not force people with guns out of their stores and will continue to serve them. I feel the letter was the most classy way possible for their company to say Keep us out of this please. I hate to say it but overly zealous people from both sides caused this and really put SBUX in a bind. I will continue to go to starbucks and only if they outright ban guns in their stores will I consider not going.

Well....

Their CEO (Live on Cavuto) just said he wants concealed carriers to follow this policy unless they are military or police.

Hey Doc.. do as you will.. but I'm sure you can go without your mocha frape latte for a little while ..

the only thing that speaks to these people is their bottom line. Hit them where it matters. If you respect the Bill of Rights, You won't patron their shops. It's that simple to me at least.

United we stand . .Divided we fall.

hermosabeach
09-19-2013, 10:30 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825657&highlight=starbucks

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=824975&highlight=starbucks

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825664&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825232&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825232&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825197&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825272&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825105&highlight=starbucks

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825097&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811554&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825226&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=825078&highlight=starbucks
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=824980&highlight=starbucks

I think you are missing the point... Starbucks are still one of the biggest gun neutral / gun supporting companies....

The Douche Bags who open carry, film the police response, get arrogant with the cops all while the STARBUCKS logo is the background is the problem....

You will find HUNDREDS of open carry stops on your tube of the Open Carry Police interaction videos.... Filmed with Starbucks as the backdrop

Open carry folks in CA could have all become instructors and taught Boy Scouts, new shooters and Women how to shoot a firearm... but they chose to walk up and down the beach and such....

the result was turning the public against guns.... not building confidence and comfort around firearms....

Can we stop with all of the Starbucks Threads???????????