Starbucks closing stores after 2 black men arrested

Bro you are like the opposite of Jon Snow.

 

The problem with that is that waiting for a friend is not a valid reason to be inside a store. If at any point they had just purchased something, there would have been no problem.....or if they had just left when the manager told them to.....or when the police told them to. They had to be pretty extreme assholes to escalate the situation to where they got arrested and they absolutely deserved it.

 

I am defending Starbucks as s place of business as a restaurant

The friend showing up afterwards and saying he was going to buy something is just his word against the manager's. I don't know if he is being truthful

Really all I would like to know is how long they were there.

The arrest isn't extreme, he has no other choice. You want him to take action himself and end in a stupid YouTube restaurant fight video?

And they weren't waiting to order so that point is moot

 

You've never been in a place like Starbuck's and been waiting for another party and waited to order until they arrived? My wife and I meet with folks at central locations plenty of times. Starbuck's, Caribou, Panera Bread, etc. Generally it's a place in between our locations so one or the other tends to arrive in advance of the other. We (or they) almost always sit at a table and wait for the other party to arrive before ordering. It's a common occurrence.

 

So, you are ignoring the one fact that we do all know? Starbuck's has admitted they made a mistake.

 

Sure I have, and I've also been at coffee shops where I was told I had to order something to stay. It all depends on where you are. When you are in the suburbs or in the sticks, restaurants and coffee shops are much more lenient about that kind of thing because not enough people are doing it to where it's a problem usually. If you go to the same kinds of places in densely populated ares, the rules are different. In these areas, if you tried to do the same kind of thing you'd be told you have to order or go. Most people when this kind of thing happens, just orders something and it's not an issue.....I mean, assuming there was actual intent to order something to begin with. Hell if they were really planning on ordering something, wouldn't they have done so when they asked to use the restroom and were told it was for customers only? Who decides to not use the restroom over just ordering something at that point if you were planning on ordering something eventually?

Point is though that you have to follow the rules of businesses or you'll be asked to leave, if you refuse, the police will generally be called in order to issue you a criminal trespass warning if you are still there by the time they show up, if you still refuse to leave once the cops show up, you'll be arrested....no matter who you are or what color your skin is.

 

And, here is another fact. This quote is from Howard Schultz, the Executive Chairman of Starbucks:

"There's no doubt in my mind that the reason that they (police) were called was because they were African American," he said. "That's not who Starbucks is."

 

Do you have a policy coming from the management that you should ask people to leave if they "look like" they are not buying?

 

That's called damage control. You throw a few employees under the bus to pacify the lynch mob forming.

 

Why can't you show the text of that policy? Surely, if you claim that it absolutely exist, you must have read it.

NO, local practice is not local policy unless you don't know how the corporate world operates. A policy has to be codified to become one. It is not semantics.

 

If anyone ever questions his knowledge, he can just point to his highest degree: his GED/high school diploma, to show his superiority.

 

SMH, you're hopeless. You are legitimately arguing that there was no policy that only customers could stay in the store and use the facilities despite the fact that Holly, the manager claims that there was such a policy. A policy that I know for a fact is commonly used in businesses that operate in densely populated areas.

"The manager blamed what she claimed was a corporate policy at City Center Philadelphia locations which prohibits excessive loitering in their stores.

She told the news outlet that management has the discretion to ensure the policy is enforced - even if that means calling in the cops."

What happened to believing women? A wealthy white man speaks thus the woman must be lying I guess is what you are going on. That's pretty sexist, but I guess the whole "believe women" narrative goes out the window when a higher priority victim group is pushing their narrative.

 

Just by judging the responses in this thread it would be stupid for Starbucks to respond otherwise

Just make it go away. Not a big deal

 

You still pushing that fan fiction? Adorable.

 

This is the smart thing to do. Defending that manager would earn them no business.

I have flip flopped on this and I am down with the boycott starbucks movement. Ideally, I would like starbucks replaced with either whataburger or chick fil a's.

 

Good luck, he's never wrong and he won't provide proof of his claims.

It's funny to me how people are defending a company that isn't asked to be defended, but it isn't really the company they are defending, they just can't EVER imagine a case of black people being racially profiled in ANY way.

 

I've always been for the boycott. I think the more businesses that pander to fringe left BS that end up suffering due to attacks from the fringe left, the better. Essentially those kinds of companies deserve it, you pander to that type of toxic ideology, you get what's coming to you when they turn on you.

 

I would have loved to have seen SBUX not throw this employee under the bus and then watch a bunch of White Nationalists start holding "sip ins" where they go and buy a bunch of coffee from them like the Christian Right did for Chik-Fil-A and their anti-gay whatnots.