Return Of The Offengers . . . . The Starbucks War

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: burdman30ott6

LMAO!
I'd call the cops as well if I had someone chilling at my place and refusing to buy a drink.
Seems staged to me, just for drama and protest.

Just make sure you only call the cops on white people who are in your establishment and not following house rules... if you call the cops on any minorities doing the same, you'll receive the dreaded (and totally meaningless these days) "racist" label and the accompanying whine fest complete with infantile screeching.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Edumakated

The store management clearly asked them to follow the rules of the store and they didn't. All they had to do was buy a pack of gum or nuts or something.

Who else did they ask to leave for the same thing?

That's what you are ignoring.

There is no way to know because we don't know who or who didn't make a purchase. While I am sure there are instances where people go to a Starbucks and don't buy anything, it is not customary. Generally, it is expected that you purchase something.

Other customers are claiming that there were white people or themselves that have done the same thing - - and were not asked to leave.

These men were targeted because of their appearance.

Yes, I am aware of the "general rules", but that really isn't the issue this time.

originally posted by: Annee
Other customers are claiming that there were white people or themselves that have done the same thing - - and were not asked to leave.

It's been stated repeatedly and ignored.

I gather some feel its OK to not ask white people to leave but turn around and ask black people to do so because ....

Well. Because what?

???

originally posted by: AnneeOther customers are claiming that there were white people or themselves that have done the same thing - - and were not asked to leave.

Hearsay.

These men were targeted because of their appearance.

Opinion based on ideology.

Yes, I am aware of the "general rules", but that really isn't the issue this time.

Please prove this.

Generally speaking, in cities all around America, businesses reserve the right to have people leave their premises if they are not there to use the business for why it exists--in this instance, to purchase their product and have a place to enjoy it.

This is called trespassing. Hell, even loitering outside of businesses is a crime in many, if not most, cities in America.

You and others scream "racism," but with that accusation needs to come some pretty decent proof.

"Because black" is not an intelligent response.

I'm sorry to pick on you, but yours was the last in 8 pages of copy that I'm really not interested in reading (since it will be the same thing over and over).

So, is there any proof of racism, or could it simply be that the manager didn't want non-customers just hanging around the business for no pertinent reason?

I'm a pretty average white guy, and I've been asked to leave places before where I was waiting for someone--I didn't refuse, I left and found somewhere else to wait, because I know that businesses have that right to have me do that. I never had the cops called on me in those instances--odd how that works.

Let me guess..."because white?"

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Edumakated

The store management clearly asked them to follow the rules of the store and they didn't. All they had to do was buy a pack of gum or nuts or something.

Who else did they ask to leave for the same thing?

That's what you are ignoring.

There is no way to know because we don't know who or who didn't make a purchase. While I am sure there are instances where people go to a Starbucks and don't buy anything, it is not customary. Generally, it is expected that you purchase something.

Other customers are claiming that there were white people or themselves that have done the same thing - - and were not asked to leave.

These men were targeted because of their appearance.

Yes, I am aware of the "general rules", but that really isn't the issue this time.

Making claims and it actually happening are two different things. People claim something all they want, but it doesn't mean it is true or that it was even the same situation. Remember, plenty of witnesses said Mike Brown had his hands up saying don't shoot and we know what bunk that turned out to be...

I bet there is CCTV footage of everything that went down. Starbucks is a weak kneed politically correct company so it will probably never see light of day as it would probably show they did nothing wrong but they care more about the opinions of their SJWs than truth. It is really ironic to see the SJWs protesting one of their biggest allies. Talk about ignorant.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Because what?

Pandering

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Because what?

Pandering

So by not asking white people to leave starbucks but asking black people to leave, who's pandering to who?

The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with a common practice at Starbucks that usually does not provoke suspicion or calls to police. The stores are “community” hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use the WiFi or chat with friends without necessarily buying anything.

Seems like people going to starbucks to just exist is a pretty common thing. Look. Again. Maybe I should bold it all:

The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with a common practice at Starbucks that usually does not provoke suspicion or calls to police. The stores are “community” hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use the WiFi or chat with friends without necessarily buying anything.

www.washingtonpost.com... _term=.81ec5fdaaa82

Will anyone of you who maintains this has nothing to do with race address this please?

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Will anyone of you who maintains this has nothing to do with race address this please?

No!! because apologists and detractors need to maintain their stance at all cost.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Because what?

Pandering

So by not asking white people to leave starbucks but asking black people to leave, who's pandering to who?

The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with a common practice at Starbucks that usually does not provoke suspicion or calls to police. The stores are “community” hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use the WiFi or chat with friends without necessarily buying anything.

Seems like people going to starbucks to just exist is a pretty common thing. Look. Again. Maybe I should bold it all:

The Starbucks official acknowledged that the incident is at odds with a common practice at Starbucks that usually does not provoke suspicion or calls to police. The stores are “community” hubs, the official said, where people often drop in to use the WiFi or chat with friends without necessarily buying anything.

www.washingtonpost.com... _term=.81ec5fdaaa82

Will anyone of you who maintains this has nothing to do with race address this please?

Yes.

Starbucks needs to train its management better. That isnt new though.

That being said...if that statement is true, Starbucks does a terrible job of espousing that. Ive seen loiterers run off from them before. Like on Houston St across from the holiday inn riverwalk.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


Starbucks needs to train its management better.

Or just try not hire bigots.

The right to do something doesn't mean there is an obligation to do so.

If it was proved the SB only forced non whites to leave than that would be a violation at a federal level. I doubt that is the case though.

i go to starbucks all the time, and buy nothing. they never ask me to leave. however, one time a starbucks asked me to leave if i won't be making a purchase but they didn't ask any of the white people, who didn't buy anything, to leave. anyway i really think this is a staged event to push some sort of agenda. there are blacks and hispanics unlawfully getting arrested left and right all the time and nobody makes a big deal out of it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Taking a blind eye to the actual issue - - - that 2 men were (allegedly) treated differently because of appearance.

Distracts from the main issue of this debate.

Yes, of course, I am aware of all the "fringe" excuses that can be and are being thrown around in here.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

that's why i feel is staged because any colored person would have left right away if they cops are involved.

a reply to: DBCowboy

you must be old

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Taking a blind eye to the actual issue - - - that 2 men were (allegedly) treated differently because of appearance.

Distracts from the main issue of this debate.

Yes, of course, I am aware of all the "fringe" excuses that can be and are being thrown around in here.

No, making assumptions detracts from reality and arrives in a giant bucket of bullsh*t.

I'm just asking, do we have proof that the manager's actions were based on race? If not, this is manufactured outrage based on the color of the two guys' skin, and that's no better than if the manager acted on racist concerns.

These guys wouldn't leave the store, even when initially asked by police after the manager did the same. Nope, not buying the 'because-black' argument until there is further evidence of such.

If you want to buy it, that's fine, but as I assumed would happen, you didn't produce any sort of evidence that the manager was being racist.

I don't really understand how saying someone who is asking for evidence to corroborate claims is tantamount to "turning a blind eye."

It's kind of the opposite, really.

originally posted by: Waingro
a reply to: DBCowboy

you must be old

####ing ancient.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

The unspoken ideology is that *some* who use it as a community hub do, in fact, eventually purchase something. It's why they frequently bring samples of baked goods or tasty drinks around to folks sitting and kibitzing... there's a hope that people there will make a purchase. If there are those inside the store who will obviously not be making any purchases, then I have no issue with Starbucks booting them out.

originally posted by: Waingro
there are blacks and hispanics unlawfully getting arrested left and right all the time and nobody makes a big deal out of it.

Trespassing is illegal, as is failure to comply with an officer's instructions... so by definition, the arrest wasn't unlawful regardless of whether Starbucks' policy was inappropriate. It is the long standing law of the land that, when one is told by a LEO to move along, they must move along and take their issue up with the courts afterward...

I think there will be a lawsuit that is settled out of court for a generous amount of money so that this will all go away.

I think the two guys involved will come out pretty well off and the store manager will be either reassigned and/or demoted.

Life will go on until the next outrage