Leftist Starbucks finds itself in the sites of liberal ire

[_Jersey Girl]

What a stupid childish thing to say.

LOL Well maybe I need to say childish things when talking to a child.

Yes, because the adults who participate here are so bloody invested that they actually hate each other.

Welcome to 4th grade.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Or. You know. You can summarize it like this:

Buy a cup of coffee if you're at an establishment that sells coffee because you're not an asshole.

- Doc

[_Themis]

Yes, because the adults who participate here are so bloody invested that they actually hate each other.

Welcome to 4th grade.

You are the only one here acting as a child. I made an observation from many many threads in which Cam has attacked EA quite hard and in many cases obviously unfairly. I have seen him make some very intelligent posts so I know he is quite cable of doing so, and it makes me think he really dislikes EA and many times takes an apposing position to troll him.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

and it makes me think he really dislikes EA and many times takes an apposing position to troll him.

I don't hate EA. How could I hate anyone who was brave enough to show his back piece?



- Doc

[_Themis]

Or. You know. You can summarize it like this:

Buy a cup of coffee if you're at an establishment that sells coffee because you're not an asshole.

- Doc

I think everyone agrees that they would have avoided major problems by making a purchase, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether they were treated unfairly because they were black. That is done by waiting to see all the evidence available and see where it points. I would also add that Starbucks has tried to promote an environment where a purchase is not required, but they hope, because people show up to use their facilities, that many of them will.

[_Themis]

and it makes me think he really dislikes EAllusion and many times takes an apposing position to troll him.

I don't hate EAllusion. How could I hate anyone who was brave enough to show his back piece?

It's just my observation based on your past and current behavior. Sure it could be wrong, but I find peoples actions say a lot about their intentions.

[_EAllusion]

I challenged Themis usage of the word "hate" because it's adolescent.

I'd think trolling on a message board with a consistent hateful attitude would be the thing to describe as adolescent, but I guess you decided to go a different route.

I said you acted like a dick because that's how I summarized his comments and--because you do.

Sure. Like when he said, based on nothing and completely unprovoked, comments like "And this why Hillary Clinton would never have been elected in tthis country. People like EAllusion ____ all over women every chance they get. This woman was a dedicated employee, educated, driven, and bilingual. And EAllusion gleefully rubs his hands as he and other men destroy her."

...that was just Doc acting good faith with his honest difference of opinion and reacting to the fact that I act like a dick.

But your take is that "Oh Jersey is ragging on me because Jersey is on Cam's side like his ____ doesn't stink and he's calling everyone names." Lord, get out of the sandbox. I've taught 4 year olds who are less egocentric than you are.

Stay classy.

Anyway,

"the fact that my posts and position shift on the thread are going largely ignored and it's gotten to the point where it's laughable. "

Maybe be a little less self-focused?

[_Gadianton]

The issue is whether they were treated unfairly because they were black.

There have been several other posts since I looked at this last, rather then respond to all of them, I also think a significant issue is how this situation was set up.

- The manager brought LE in by a extremely narrow reading of company policy
- LE responded and handled the situation by the most narrow interpretation of the law (they must really have had nothing to do that night to respond so quickly and in such number to such a trite 911 call.)
- Starbucks policy has in letter apparently shifted over the years from explicitly open-door, to managerial discretion on loitering (to match more typical business customs) without any kind of direct clarification to the public, and in fact, attempting to conceal that there has been in fact a policy change to maintain their brand of open doors.
- There is a natural confusion of about one's rights in terms of criminal and civil law, this is drastically complicated by the above point. To me, a big question is, had the men been in McDonalds and asked to leave by the manager, would they have done so? While it's hard for me to imagine any big chain nickel and dime customers within 2 minutes of walking in, customer expectations elsewhere would likely be lower.

[_EAllusion]

The issue is whether they were treated unfairly because they were black.

There have been several other posts since I looked at this last, rather then respond to all of them, I also think a significant issue is how this situation was set up.

- The manager brought LE in by a extremely narrow reading of company policy
- LE responded and handled the situation by the most narrow interpretation of the law (they must really have had nothing to do that night to respond so quickly and in such number to such a trite 911 call.)
- Starbucks policy has in letter apparently shifted over the years from explicitly open-door, to managerial discretion on loitering (to match more typical business customs) without any kind of direct clarification to the public, and in fact, attempting to conceal that there has been in fact a policy change to maintain their brand of open doors.
- There is a natural confusion of about one's rights in terms of criminal and civil law, this is drastically complicated by the above point. To me, a big question is, had the men been in McDonalds and asked to leave by the manager, would they have done so? While it's hard for me to imagine any big chain nickel and dime customers within 2 minutes of walking in, customer expectations elsewhere would likely be lower.

There's this issue as well, but if that's all the story was about, it wouldn't have been a national firestorm. It would've been just like the other story you linked involving a police officer annoyed that he couldn't use the locked bathroom. That is a story about questionable customer service to the extent that local Starbucks aren't making it clear that unlike most Starbucks they are cracking down on loitering to combat homeless free riders.

What makes this story so incendiary is the charge that this policy was enforced in a racially inequitable fashion. It wouldn't even have to be a pure double standard. If it is inconsistently enforced, and blacks are just asked to leave more quickly or frequently than whites on average for the same behavior, that's a serious problem. In fact, it's illegal and subject to civil suit. Given that there are several witnesses who state that this is what was happening in this particular store on this particular day, that's why it's a big story. What further inflames it is the police seemingly acting in an over-the-top fashion, which is obviously a sensitive subject given the well-known problem of profiling of blacks leading to harsher treatment.

[_subgenius]

The issue is whether they were treated unfairly because they were black.

That's not really the issue..the issue is more pointed...the only reason their treatment is being questioned is because they were black. This is the most glaring example of Liberal racism, of how "blacks" must surely still need privileged white people to secure their freedom and equality...because even though "blacks" are free and are equal, Liberals insist on telling them that are not.

Everything being the same except a couple of white guys getting arrested, Starbucks sensitivity training stays on the shelf.