# Starbucks to close all company-owned stores racial-bias education day



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/sta...-on-may-29-for-racial-bias-education-day.html


"
Starbucks said Tuesday it will be closing all of its company-owned restaurants in the U.S. during the afternoon of May 29 to conduct a racial-bias education program.

"I've spent the last few days in Philadelphia with my leadership team listening to the community, learning what we did wrong and the steps we need to take to fix it," Kevin Johnson, CEO of Starbucks, said in a statement Tuesday. "While this is not limited to Starbucks, we're committed to being a part of the solution. Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

At least they are taking the incidents and issues seriously.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wow the loss they are going to take for doing nothing wrong.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Wow the loss they are going to take for doing nothing wrong.


Me thinks they are trying to mitigate future loses if they did nothing.

Already reports of people purposely being loud and obnoxious, hoping to disrupt operations


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

They and perhaps other business need to put a sign up on their doors. X amount of money spent every so many minutes to be in the building. Spend some money and move on. Peoples reactions often times amaze me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Political Correctness rules all.


----------



## Bungiex88 (Jan 2, 2016)

Who drinks that cat piss anyway. They should just keep there doors closed. I’d rather drink my own pee then a Starbucks coffee


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bungiex88 said:


> Who drinks that cat piss anyway. They should just keep there doors closed. I’d rather drink my own pee then a Starbucks coffee


Man that’s just not right , but happy dining......


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> Me thinks they are trying to mitigate future loses if they did nothing.
> 
> Already reports of people purposely being loud and obnoxious, hoping to disrupt operations


 Yeah. I think it’s a dig and pony show but it’s gonna cost them millions to kick a couple of deadbeats out the door.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am wondering if those guys staged this to make a big pay day?


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

Can people last a full afternoon without their caffeine hit? 

geo


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

Starbucks will soon realize that no amount of money and no amount of training is going to appease those who demand Starbucks "fix it".


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

geo in mi said:


> Can people last a full afternoon without their caffeine hit?
> 
> geo


No, no way


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I'd love to hear any theory on how they staged this, or why that would even be a consideration. 
Are they going for a lawsuit?


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

I don't know who drinks it either I only tried it once and that was some awful stuff to try to get down.(not to mention the price) I don't see hardly anyone at their stand while Tim Hortons is packed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> I'd love to hear any theory on how they staged this, or why that would even be a consideration.


Why are so many "racial" incidents staged?

Money and publicity are the two main reasons.
Or maybe someone had something against the company and wanted to make them suffer. There are lots of possible reasons it could have been done. All I know for sure is they were asked to make a purchase or leave and they refused, which caused the incident to snowball out of proportion.

We won't ever know if it was a set up, but it certainly made lots of headlines and cost Starbucks a fortune.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> I'd love to hear any theory on how they staged this, or why that would even be a consideration.
> Are they going for a lawsuit?


BG1 - Hey, I got an idea.
BG2 - What?
BG1- We go into Starbucks, make it obvious we have not bought anything, and that maybe we will not buy anything. Then ask to use the bathroom. We have to see if we can evoke the "bathroom is for customers" rule. If we do, we are half way home. Then we find a white guy that used the bathroom before he bought something. Then we are set. We have to video things, and we need to get the police to come arrest us.
BG2 - What does this all do for us, other than get us arrested?
BG1 - Oh man, you have no imagination. Just think, if we can pull this all off we will have Starbucks begging us not to sue. They will throw money at us to avoid a lawsuit.
BG2 - Brilliant. I'll follow your lead.

This is how Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton make their millions, just a much larger scale.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Moving right along...


Cohen said he and his clients suggested that along with Starbucks, they engage in a mediation with a retired federal judge in Philadelphia. Cohen said Starbucks agreed to that proposal, which necessitates that the conversations between executives and Nelson and Robinson remain confidential.

https://www.dailyherald.com/business/20180419/black-men-arrested-at-starbucks-tell-their-story


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

You have confused the two recent incidents.

The first one was two black guys waiting for a white guy and a business deal, so I'll use this: Don't forget WG1 that shows up in the nick of time to tell the cops they were waiting for him... Plus how many times did they try (and at how many Starbucks) until they found one with a (alleged) racist barista? And a white woman that would video it for them?

I can't give it more than a 1.5 on either creativity or believability, and that's out of five. I'm tough tho. 

The second one was one black guy and one white guy that went in intending to order but not wanting to take their food/coffee into the bathroom. White guy gets the bathroom code prior to ordering, black guy doesn't, so in this case it's a interracial scam?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> No, no way


As I sit here with a cup of orange Seville with just a touch of cream.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You have confused the two recent incidents.
> 
> The first one was two black guys waiting for a white guy and a business deal, so I'll use this: Don't forget WG1 that shows up in the nick of time to tell the cops they were waiting for him... Plus how many times did they try (and at how many Starbucks) until they found one with a (alleged) racist barista? And a white woman that would video it for them?
> 
> ...


I am talking about Philly.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're still confused, the Philly incident was two black guys and a white guy regarding a business meeting.


What am I confused about? I quoted the article, and said two black guys, BG1 & BG2.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Reread your post. There was nothing about a bathroom in the Philly incident.


Commissioner Ross said in a video posted to Facebook on Saturday afternoon that police responded around 4:40 p.m. Thursday to a 911 call reporting a disturbance. The men had refused to leave the cafe after *asking to use the restroom without placing an order,* which violated Starbucks policy, staff members told police.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/s...-viral-video-investigation-race-20180414.html


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am not aware of anything in Cali


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ps-minutes-black-men-arrive-article-1.3942931
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-starbucks-arrest-20180419-story.html
> 
> Your link is wrong. And I am done.


Your first link says "Nelson recalled asking the manager to use the bathroom after he and Robinson arrived at the Starbucks. She denied him access because he hadn’t ordered anything, Nelson said on “GMA.”"


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ps-minutes-black-men-arrive-article-1.3942931
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-starbucks-arrest-20180419-story.html
> 
> Your link is wrong. And I am done.


Your second link's first line is "Rashon Nelson initially brushed it off when the Starbucks manager told him *he couldn't use the restroom* because he wasn't a paying customer."


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Fine. You're right. You're always right, you and the old sheep farmer are quite a pair. I'm wrong, I'm always wrong, because I'm liberal. Happy?


I am just trying to understand the facts, and you said I was wrong. Being refused the bathroom is central in the issue.

Calm down..


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Just nope. Nope, nope, nope.

ETA: I was played, and fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I fully admit it.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

If a business manager ask a customer to leave then why in the world would they not do so? Nothing in the recorded videos or phone calls seem to involve race or any other such thing. Meeting someone, who cares, meet them somewhere else. Wait out side. If the treatment is not to a customers or potential customer liking then go spend money somewhere else. If your asked to leave then get up and go. Baffles me why it gets to the point of police being involved.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> Reread your post. There was nothing about a bathroom in the Philly incident.


They asked to use the rest rooms.
That's when they were told to make a purchase or leave.
Whether it was mentioned in a particular post makes no difference.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

HD, thanks for your scenario of possible events, what a plan...
The CEO states this should never have happened to them. One of your articles notes the police think they could have handled it better.
The police were called within 2 minutes of their arrival, but since Starbucks is known for their welcoming,stay as long as you like atmosphere, their plan would have been flawed from the beginning.

Mediation does not always involve a monetary solution.

I wonder if we will ever hear the story from the Managers perspective.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A day of racial sensitivity training is just a twist on the old, " Some of my best friends are colored." ploy to show how non-racist you are.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)




----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> HD, thanks for your scenario of possible events, what a plan...
> The CEO states this should never have happened to them. One of your articles notes the police think they could have handled it better.
> The police were called within 2 minutes of their arrival, but since Starbucks is known for their welcoming,stay as long as you like atmosphere, their plan would have been flawed from the beginning.
> 
> ...


Flawed plan or not, it worked, and is working. Mark my word, there will be some agreement, or settlement that they "are prohibited by the terms of the agreement to discuss".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


>


After watching that video, how can anyone doubt the possibility of a scam and a CEO willing to provide "reparation".

The Philly boys just learned the scam from Jackson and Sharpton. If you don't know how they work, just ask and I am happy to explain it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just nope. Nope, nope, nope.
> 
> ETA: I was played, and fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I fully admit it.


Why did you delete so much of your discussion?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Why did you delete so much of your discussion?


Tsk. Tsk. You played me once, it won't happen again.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

That video was made by a comedian as I understand it...humor takes many forms.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

doozie said:


> That video was made by a comedian as I understand it...humor takes many forms.


Good call, doozie!

It looks like I wasn't the only one played, it's sad when people want to believe the worst about a race of people.

"A black comedian decided to make light of the viral Starbucks arrest by asking a white employee at a different location for a free coffee, citing 'reparations.'

Bryan Sharpe, a comedian and author who goes by 'Hotep Jesus' on social media, posted the video of him walking in a coffee shop and asking for the cup."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Starbucks-coffee-reparations-prank-video.html


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good call, doozie!
> 
> It looks like I wasn't the only one played, it's sad when people want to believe the worst about a race of people.
> 
> ...


I knew it was a comedian. It has been talked about all day.

He simply proved how easy it is to play on white guilt.

Comedian or not he pulled off a scam, and by the looks of the video, he pulled it off very easy.

Why do you want to tear me down? Play nice.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Tsk. Tsk. You played me once, it won't happen again.


How did I play you? You said I was wrong, but you were. I might be wrong some day and you can show some grace. I am not rubbing your nose in it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I knew it was a comedian. It has been talked about all day.
> 
> He simply proved how easy it is to play on white guilt.
> 
> ...


It's not all about you, dude. Who put up the video?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> The CEO states this should never have happened to them.


The CEO is doing PR/damage control.
He made his first comments before he had talked to the manager.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It looks like I wasn't the only one played


It appears you're the only one who thought it was real.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

From what I can understand, the two men had gone into Starbucks to "meet" someone else for a business deal. They sat down at a table. When asked what they would like, they said "Nothing, we are waiting on someone."
At some point one of them asked to use the restroom and was told it was for customers only. The manager asked them to leave if they weren't going to order anything.

All they would have had to do was order something, but they refused.

When the cops came, the cops asked them to leave since they weren't paying customers. Again they used their "We are meeting someone here." Again, the simple SOLUTION for them to continue to sit there was to order something, but they refused, gave the cops a hard time, and were then arrested.

From my understanding, they are now on tv saying they were waiting on a person to meet with them about a "business deal" that would "change their lives". Apparently, Starbucks "ruined it" for them since they were arrested because they wouldn't leave.

Makes no difference to me. I don't go to Starbucks, nor am I a stock holder.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not all about you, dude. Who put up the video?


Ahh, that would be me. I posted two clips. The first explains the scam. The second, he explains the scam.
It just pokes fun at how afraid people are of offending a Black person.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

I just wonder if this was 2 young "privileged" white males would this even be a story?

I got turned down from a bathroom at a McDonald's in Chicago. I didn't buy anything i just really had to go. If I had made it into an incedeni I doubt the media would've cared.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

And that comedian is a conservative. Who really dislikes liberals.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)




----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Gals from the View saw the same video you did, yet they saw white people in that video hanging out, not buying anything, but not being asked to leave. They saw the same racism they have to deal with every day.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not all about you, dude. Who put up the video?


The silly games you play.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

What happened to the old: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone we choose." signs? Did a law change, court decision, or......? Just asking, not arguing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

geo in mi said:


> *Did a law change*, court decision, or......? Just asking, not arguing.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made a big difference.
Many state laws changed in the mid to late 60's also.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

geo in mi said:


> What happened to the old: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone we choose." signs? Did a law change, court decision, or......? Just asking, not arguing.


The law was enacted in 1964, it's called The Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was required because some Americans couldn't act like decent human beings to some other Americans and treat them as equals, so protected classes were born. It's illegal to discriminate against those Americans in the protected classes.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

In my opinion, and in this particular case, the Manager decided to interpret the Starbucks business practice of being a place where people can come together in the community to commiserate, into a buy something or leave or I'll call the cops situation, all within 2 minutes of arrival.

I've worked at a company, with a very generous, take a customer's return, no questions asked policy. I saw some "you won't believe this" things returned. We took them with a smile, have a nice day attitude. It wasn't up to me to interpret the policy to what I thought would be acceptable, or what that policy included, or if it was being abused.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

doozie said:


> In my opinion, and in this particular case, the Manager decided to interpret the Starbucks business practice of being a place where people can come together in the community to commiserate, into a buy something or leave or I'll call the cops situation, all within 2 minutes of arrival.
> 
> I've worked at a company, with a very generous, take a customer's return, no questions asked policy. I saw some "you won't believe this" things returned. We took them with a smile, have a nice day attitude. It wasn't up to me to interpret the policy to what I thought would be acceptable, or what that policy included, or if it was being abused.


I agree. From the reports I have read the manager did not even ask them to leave, she just called the police. The police took her word for it and then made them leave by arresting them. Turns out the manager was in the wrong and has now paid the price.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I agree. From the reports I have read the manager did not even ask them to leave, she just called the police. The police took her word for it and then made them leave by arresting them. Turns out the manager was in the wrong and has now paid the price.


Did she get fired?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Did she get fired?


I don't know. She is no longer manager at that store according to reports. Her picture and name have been posted online. Stories about her only being a manager for one month before the event. I think she has paid a price.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I don't know. She is no longer manager at that store according to reports. Her picture and name have been posted online. Stories about her only being a manager for one month before the event. I think she has paid a price.


She’s a goat.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

geo in mi said:


> What happened to the old: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone we choose." signs? Did a law change, court decision, or......? Just asking, not arguing.


Actually this wasn't a case of the refusing to serve it was a case of them refusing o buy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> In my opinion, and in this particular case, the Manager decided to interpret the Starbucks business practice of being a place where people can come together in the community to commiserate, into a buy something or leave or I'll call the cops situation, *all within 2 minutes of arrival*.


I never saw anything to indicate how long they were there before being told to make a purchase or leave.



doozie said:


> It wasn't up to me to interpret the policy to what I thought would be acceptable, or what that policy included, or if it was being abused.


Maybe Starbuck's upper management did a poor job of explaining the policy, or maybe it's not really a written policy at all. 

Maybe it's just the CEO trying to avoid future problems.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

On Saturday, Christopher Norris reportedly spoke with the manager of the Starbucks. Norris writes:

Holly — who wouldn’t give me her last name nor share a business card for fear that it would spark online stalking, either by me or whomever I passed her information along to — has managed the 18th & Spruce Street location for a year. And, during that time, she has encountered many individuals who loiter in the café with no intentions of purchasing; at least one of those persons, she claims, chased her around the store after she asked them to leave.

https://spectator.org/starbucks-philadelphia-controversies-without-nuance/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Had to share some more from the link...

Anyone who is from Philly, or who has worked there for some time, will surely be familiar with such loitering persons. The poorest big city in America, Philadelphia abounds with them.

On Monday, in her interview with Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson in the _Philadelphia Inquirer_, Samantha Melemad observed: “It’s clear from Starbucks Reddit discussions and online forums that staff regularly must make decisions on how to deal with people dealing with addiction or homelessness.”

Indeed. If Starbucks allows nonpaying persons to hang around, then, as at the beleaguered Philadelphia train stations, so full of the mentally ill, there will be the endless task of chasing away the homeless (many of them drug addicts), or people who come in to use the free Wi-Fi, among the myriad other circumstances that might motivate someone to put a private business to personal use at no cost.

As if in self-parody, Kevin Johnson flew in to town in order to apologize to “the two victims.” In the necessary cynical translation, that means he tried to protect his shareholders’ interests by deflecting Starbucks’ indispensable need for order. “My understanding,” he said, “is that the store manager had asked the gentlemen to leave and then, following that, called the police. Calling the police was wrong; it should not have happened. Calling the police was unnecessary.” Unnecessary? Well then, what were the employees to do? They had repeatedly asked two men who were in willful violation of company policy to leave, but the men would not cooperate.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

HD, your article , to me, looks like an opinion piece, comparing Starbucks to the Philly Train Station, and comparing the men to homeless addicts one might encounter at the station. OK, Maybe not directly, but what does any of that have to do with what happened to the two men.

Did Holly call the police on all the other people she encountered? You know, the ones she claims had no intention of purchasing anything?

BearF, If you look for a story under Starbucks 2 minute arrest, you'll see a timeline. Perhaps a story directly from the two men's account of things that took place too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

doozie said:


> HD, your article , to me, looks like an opinion piece, comparing Starbucks to the Philly Train Station, and comparing the men to homeless addicts one might encounter at the station. OK, Maybe not directly, but what does any of that have to do with what happened to the two men.
> 
> Did Holly call the police on all the other people she encountered? You know, the ones she claims had no intention of purchasing anything?
> 
> BearF, If you look for a story under Starbucks 2 minute arrest, you'll see a timeline. Perhaps a story directly from the two men's account of things that took place too.


It's definitely an opinion piece, and a carefully chosen one at that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yes it is an opinion piece with facts in it. Did you read about the man chasing the manager around the store?

She was afraid. Those guys looked like 
derelicts. 

Those guys played on her fear. 

I would expect you to empathize with her. Instead you call her racist. Sad.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Yes it is an opinion piece with facts in it. Did you read about the man chasing the manager around the store?
> 
> She was afraid. Those guys looked like
> derelicts.
> ...


Don't post lies, I didn't call this woman a racist.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't post lies, I didn't call this woman a racist.


By supporting those two men you do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> By supporting those two men you do.


Nope. I'll betcha I know better what I think than you do.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Oh come on now, where, and in what story,was it stated she was afraid of the two men?? 
Derelicts? Wow! 
I've not said she was racist, but there are other stories on her available that call the possibility into question.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> Oh come on now, where, and in what story,was it stated she was afraid of the two men??
> Derelicts? Wow!
> I've not said she was racist, but there are other stories on her available that call the possibility into question.


I do contend she was afraid of them. She was made fearful by where she was. She was conditioned by her environment day after day with the type of men that might hurt her. 

It is one thing or another. She was either afraid or racists. Feel free to choose what you believe. I have. 

The two men pushed it. Got arrested. Now they get rich. Price of Starbucks coffee just went up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I'll betcha I know better what I think than you do.


Feel free to share what you think. Why be evasive about what you think. 

Was she racists or afraid? Is there another reason I cannot think of?

Why did she call the cops?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Feel free to share what you think. Why be evasive about what you think.
> 
> Was she racists or afraid? Is there another reason I cannot think of?
> 
> Why did she call the cops?


I have no clue, you have only provided one carefully chosen opinion piece.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no clue, you have only provided one carefully chosen opinion piece.


You don’t know what you think?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You don’t know what you think?


The silly games you play.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> The silly games you play.


Or afraid to say. 

I wish it wasn’t so hard for you to agree with me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's illegal to discriminate against those Americans in the protected classes.


I think your quote is a little off. Seems to me that it has been illegal for most of your life to discriminate against several defined groups on the basis of being in that group.
I can refuse to serve a Black person for being too loud, but not for being Black. I can refuse to serve a woman for stinking, but not for being female.
It is NOT illegal to discriminate against Americans in the protected class for reasons other than those specific classes. Just because a person is in a protected class is not going to protect them from other acts of discrimination.
You may see this as a small point, but I have observed people in those protected classes say that they cannot be fired for any reason or that they cannot be turned away from a sold out concert or full restaurant.
Perhaps it was this same misconception that lead these guys to believe they could not be discriminated against for any reason, based on their false belief that they held a special status for all things,


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I think your quote is a little off. Seems to me that it has been illegal for most of your life to discriminate against several defined groups on the basis of being in that group.
> I can refuse to serve a Black person for being too loud, but not for being Black. I can refuse to serve a woman for stinking, but not for being female.
> It is NOT illegal to discriminate against Americans in the protected class for reasons other than those specific classes. Just because a person is in a protected class is not going to protect them from other acts of discrimination.
> You may see this as a small point, but I have observed people in those protected classes say that they cannot be fired for any reason or that they cannot be turned away from a sold out concert or full restaurant.
> Perhaps it was this same misconception that lead these guys to believe they could not be discriminated against for any reason, based on their false belief that they held a special status for all things,


Context, as they say, is everything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> BearF, If you look for a story under Starbucks 2 minute arrest, you'll see a timeline. Perhaps a story directly from the two men's account of things that took place too.


Or perhaps a one sided version?

No matter the time line, for some reason they were told to leave and refused, which under PA law makes them "defiant trespassers".



Irish Pixie said:


> Context, as they say, is everything.


In this context they were trespassing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I wish it wasn’t so hard for you to agree with me.


She will as long as you agree with her first and always.
If you don't she will turn on you.

She once said I was "a laid back guy who gives well thought out responses without emotion", but now she has me on ignore mainly because I don't agree with stupid gun bans.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

We should stop pretending that we are against discrimination. We simply keep changing which group toward which our bigotry is allowed.

Currently, white males are the biggest target. Allegations of rape can now be made, and guilt is assumed unless otherwise proven. Consider the Duke Lacrosse team and University of Virginia (Rolling Stone fabricated story) cases, and many more. Lynch mobs form as soon as the accusations fly.

A women's only club in New York is being investigated for discrimination. Obviously nothing will happen. They say they need a "safe space" without men, implying that all men are dangerous. Can you imagine saying that about women or minorities?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/style/the-wing-investigation.html


I've been following a case in the mormon church in which a woman is now accusing a leader of rape back in the 80's. On several forums I read nothing but anger against him, and against the church for the coverup and smear campaign against her. But her story wasn't adding up, as she stated in December he couldn't rape her due to lack of erection, but now saying he did. After about ten articles against the leader and the church, I finally found one that said this is her third different rape allegation, and in February she was committing fraud in New Mexico with a credit card. And other false accusations she's made.


Anyway, many people automatically believe what a woman says, and assume all men are rapists. And then they complain about bigotry and sexism.


Amazing!

Ultimately, it is all about being victims. There is big money in the victim industry. Lots of benefits for all. Sure beats working.

Sure there are true victims, but they are all lost when so many fake ones are stealing the attention and resources.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Or afraid to say.
> 
> I wish it wasn’t so hard for you to agree with me.


I have agreed with you, and when I do I either like your post or respond in an affirmative manner. I just don't agree with you on this topic. It's not a big deal, at least to me, and you're not offensive or you'd be on ignore.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Does anyone here use another's business for free?
Sure you can walk around the mall
Would you go into a business and use their furniture ac hot water bathroom space for paying customers etc?
Of course you wouldn't
I never would
I have went to bookstores and had coffee and something to eat
Buy nothing?
Never


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Does anyone here use another's business for free?
> Sure you can walk around the mall
> Would you go into a business and use their furniture ac hot water bathroom space for paying customers etc?
> Of course you wouldn't
> ...


It's part of being Starbucks, people will buy pay $8 (or so) for a coffee and use their wifi, when my youngest was studying for tests she'd sit there for a couple hours doing homework in between class and work. 

We don't know if the men would have purchased coffee when the other man got there, they were arrested before that happened.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Does anyone here use another's business for free?


Shhhhh a SJW once told me expecting people to have the same logic capabilities as yourself is 'white privlege'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Prismseed said:


> Shhhhh a SJW once told me expecting people to have the same logic capabilities as yourself is 'white privlege'.


Why are you stirring the pot by using inflammatory rhetoric like "SJW" and "white privilege"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *We don't know* if the men would have purchased coffee when the other man got there, they were arrested before that happened.


We *do* know they had an opportunity to make a purchase and refused.



Irish Pixie said:


> *Why are you stirring the pot* by using inflammatory rhetoric like "SJW" and "white privilege"?


Why do you stir the pot?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I seem to recall a thread about the protocol of using the toilet at businesses when on road trips.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you stirring the pot by using inflammatory rhetoric like "SJW" and "white privilege"?


So only SJWs are allowed to "stir the pot"?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> So only SJWs are allowed to "stir the pot"?


You do understand that the term SJW or Social Justice Warrior is pejorative, don't you?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's part of being Starbucks, people will buy pay $8 (or so) for a coffee and use their wifi, when my youngest was studying for tests she'd sit there for a couple hours doing homework in between class and work.
> 
> We don't know if the men would have purchased coffee when the other man got there, they were arrested before that happened.


I'm just not seeing it
It being using other's resources
I would not use others resources
Wifi ac furniture bathroom hot water
Anything
Without a purchase
Neither would anybody else


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Why? Just why is it pejorative?


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you stirring the pot by using inflammatory rhetoric like "SJW" and "white privilege"?


Why do you think it is inflammatory? They are quite common terms, many self identifying as SJW (or some form thereof), and many willing to claim white privilege. If you can think of better terms I'd be happy to hear them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Prismseed said:


> Why do you think it is inflammatory? They are quite common terms, many self identifying as SJW (or some form thereof), and many willing to claim white privilege. If you can think of better terms I'd be happy to hear them.


Do you understand that the term SJW or Social Justice Warrior is pejorative?

ETA: And using "white privilege" in any context is inflammatory.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It seems like many accurate words become pejorative after they are in common use.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> I'm just not seeing it
> It being using other's resources
> I would not use others resources
> Wifi ac furniture bathroom hot water
> ...


How often do you go to Starbucks? Look around the next few times and you'll see many, many people reading a book, on their phone, on a laptop, etc. 

And you choose what is acceptable for you, not for anyone else. Right?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I just think common courtesy says you patronize the business first
That's just me
I dont know you personally
I think you would too
Starbucks where I live?
None
But I've been there many times before


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you understand that the term SJW or Social Justice Warrior is pejorative?


It had a different original use years before it was used as a pejorative. Originally it was a self appointed title by those who took a more 'proactive' role than basic activism/protest. They took civil disobedience to a higher level, and thanks to some of more unreasonable (self titled) SJWs it started to be used as a pejorative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.



Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: And using "white privilege" in any context is inflammatory.


I can understand the sentiment but at the same time it is a talking point that isn't going to go away anytime soon.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We *do* know they had an opportunity to make a purchase and refused.
> 
> 
> Why do you stir the pot?


Not only did they refuse to purchase anything, they brought their own bottles of water with them. Also, They refused to leave when asked, by police officers who were responding to a call, before they we're arrested. They had opportunities to not make this a thing.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She will as long as you agree with her first and always.
> If you don't she will turn on you.
> 
> She once said I was "a laid back guy who gives well thought out responses without emotion", but now she has me on ignore mainly because I don't agree with stupid gun bans.


That’s not fair or true. 

Her and I bitterly disagree on a couple critical issues, but we can converse like adults on others.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s not fair or true.
> 
> Her and I bitterly disagree on a couple critical issues, but we can converse like adults on others.


The key is that we respect each other's opinion, and we admit it when we're proven wrong.

ETA: And I'm sure that _everything_ I post will be trashed, but at least I won't have to read it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s not fair or true.
> 
> Her and I bitterly disagree on a couple critical issues, but we can converse like adults on others.


It's both fair and true based on my own observations.

There are exceptions to all rules.
She mainly likes you because you like to argue with me.

The "like" button tells a story if one simply reads.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: And using "white privilege" in any context is inflammatory.


As is "common sense gun control".
Pot, Kettle


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dmm1976 said:


> Not only did they refuse to purchase anything, they brought their own bottles of water with them. Also, They refused to leave when asked, by police officers who were responding to a call, before they we're arrested. They had opportunities to not make this a thing.


What's really sad is all the commotion here about 2 trespassers in PA being told to leave, but not a peep about two deputy Sheriff's gunned down in FL while eating lunch.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> but not a peep about two deputy Sheriff's gunned down in FL while eating lunch.


Why don't you start a new post about it then?



Bearfootfarm said:


> It's both fair and true based on my own observations.


My observations show you're pretty level headed in most topics, but there are certain ones you become more heated and insulting in. I will say you're much calmer than the Bearfoot from years ago I used to argue with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Prismseed said:


> My observations show you're pretty level headed in most topics, but there are certain ones you become more heated and insulting in.


I'm no more "insulting" than some others.
Some will call any disagreement insulting.

Others feel that way about the simple truth.

There are some topics which tend to generate more passionate responses.
That applies to everyone also.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Prismseed said:


> Why don't you start a new post about it then?


That wouldn't change the fact the media and general public have largely ignored it due to being caught up with the "social injustice" of someone being told to leave a store then refusing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That wouldn't change the fact the media and general public have largely ignored it due to being caught up with the "social injustice" of someone being told to leave a store then refusing.


You sure like to blame everyone else. Start a thread about things you think should be discussed or you are the people you are complaining about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You sure like to blame everyone else. Start a thread about things you think should be discussed or you are the people you are complaining about.


How will that change what I just stated?

The media and the public drive what goes "viral".
It's not determined by what I happen to post.

It couldn't be spun into the "anti-gun" or "racist/bigot" categories, so it was largely ignored.

I didn't "blame" anyone for anything.
I pointed out the facts.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How will that change what I just stated?
> 
> The media and the public drive what goes "viral".
> It's not determined by what I happen to post.
> ...


You are what you complain about. Very simple.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You are what you complain about. Very *simple*.


You're making "simple" statements.
They just don't have anything to do with what I said or what I asked.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> I'm just not seeing it
> It being using other's resources
> I would not use others resources
> Wifi ac furniture bathroom hot water
> ...


Well if this is your 1st time being wrong, try to get used to it.

Maybe someone can start a poll on how many of us have used facilities open to the public without purchasing anything.

You can start with my vote.
"Yes"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

dmm1976 said:


> Not only did they refuse to purchase anything, they brought their own bottles of water with them. Also, They refused to leave when asked, by police officers who were responding to a call, before they we're arrested. They had opportunities to not make this a thing.


OMG!
It's a crime wave in Philly!
Someone call the cops!

The nerve of black guys bringing their own water bottles. What's this world coming to?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What's really sad is all the commotion here about 2 trespassers in PA being told to leave, but not a peep about two deputy Sheriff's gunned down in FL while eating lunch.





painterswife said:


> You sure like to blame everyone else. Start a thread about things you think should be discussed or you are the people you are complaining about.


I should have posted that thread the other day, but I got wrapped up in other things.
Fortunately the guy shot himself in the head afterwards, so there's not much left to say or do about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe someone can start a poll on how many of us have used facilities open to the public without purchasing anything.


That's not the issue.
The issue is remaining once told to leave.
You know that.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's both fair and true based on my own observations.
> 
> There are exceptions to all rules.
> She mainly likes you because you like to argue with me.
> ...


Are you serious?
Newsflash: everything here does not revolve around BearfootFarm, or his 186,000 posts. We all know the address to Google. 

I “like” about 1% of what IP posts, and she about the same for me. We disagree on A LOT.

The difference between either of us and you, in regards to the dynamics of disagreement, is in the level of maturity and not having an unassailable need to never be anything less than 100% “right” on a meaningless internet forum.
(_Cue one of your I know you are, but what am I retorts_.)

While you and I may appear to “agree” on a lot of the issues, I imagine that my reaction to you, in real life, would usually start with me rolling my eyes as I go find something better to do.

I have a neighbor who appears to share many of Pixie’s views, but we can enjoy a cup of coffee or a beer over the fence line. I’m not afraid to tell him how stupid some of his ideas are, and I don’t feel any less of myself, or him, when he tells me the same. And we always make time to stop and talk when we see each other.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I have a neighbor who appears to share many of Pixie’s views, but we can enjoy a cup of coffee or a beer over the fence line. I’m not afraid to tell him how stupid some of his ideas are, and I don’t feel any less of myself, or him, when he tells me the same. And we always make time to stop and talk when we see each other.


I have a few friends like that, good people don't have to agree on everything to get along.
makes for some great conversations


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I have a few friends like that, good people don't have to agree on everything to get along.
> makes for some great conversations


Makes for better conversations, if you ask me. 

There are select few old folks who I’ll openly disagree with. Everyone else, fair game.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

You know cops are getting refused service and not getting arrested. Why? Because they leave when asked because they know if you stay you get arrested for trespassing.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> OMG!
> It's a crime wave in Philly!
> Someone call the cops!
> 
> The nerve of black guys bringing their own water bottles. What's this world coming to?


Because the business they were in sells water. And they were asked if they wanted to purchase something... according to them they were asked if they wanted to buy water ( which would have made them paying customers) but they were incredulous about this because they had their own waters...

Usually in food and beverage stores they don't want you bringing your own product.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> Well if this is your 1st time being wrong, try to get used to it.
> 
> Maybe someone can start a poll on how many of us have used facilities open to the public without purchasing anything.
> 
> ...


I may be wrong about others
I don't use others resources for free


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Now wait a minute, why would Starbucks even have the policy that the bathroom was for paying customers, unless they knew there would be lots of people in their store that wouldn't be purchasing anything?? Why wasn't this policy stated on signage inside the store, or even a loitering statement. (Which is something I have seen in fast food places)
I've never ever had to be buzzed in or given a code before using a restroom. Maybe a key for a gas station, but purchase was never a condition if my memory serves me.
I've also brought my own water with me into the grocery store. I have been known to bring a water to a movie theatre too, gum and candy at times too...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Newsflash: everything here does not revolve around BearfootFarm, or his 186,000 posts. We all know the address to Google.


What I said is what I have observed.
I really don't care if you agree with me or not.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I “like” about 1% of what IP posts, and she about the same for me. We disagree on A LOT.


Once more, I don't care.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> While you and I may appear to “agree” on a lot of the issues, I imagine that my reaction to you, in real life, would usually start with me rolling my eyes as I go find something better to do.


See my reply above.
Or put me on ignore and you won't have to read anything I post.
It makes no difference to me at all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"I don't care but, I can't stop responding to Gunmonkey to tell him how much I don't care."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> "I don't care but, I can't stop responding to Gunmonkey to tell him how much I don't care."


My response isn't a sign of "caring".
Don't look for hidden meanings.

And thanks for caring about me


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ...Or put me on ignore and you won't have to read anything I post.
> It makes no difference to me at all.


_Ignore_?
Who said anything about using an ignore feature?

Oh..wait...you did. You do like your drama, don’t you?


Why would I want to deprive myself of your posts? You obviously don’t realize it, but it’s obvious to the rest of us; this forum around which you base 18 hours of your every waking-day, using Google to try to convince us all that you actually get the independent life, you’re its comic-relief.

No. I think I’ll keep reading your posts as I choose.
Thanks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> *Who said* anything about using an ignore feature?


I did, and you even quoted it.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You do like your drama, don’t you?


You're causing all the drama now aren't you?



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No. I think I’ll keep reading your posts as I choose.


I don't care what you do.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You obviously don’t realize it, but it’s obvious to the rest of us; this forum around which you base *18 hours* of your every waking-day, using Google to try to convince us all that you actually get the independent life, *you’re it’s comic-relief*.


So you were wrong when you said it didn't revolve around me?
You need to pick a story and stick to it.

(And stop telling all the lies...There are enough liars without you being one too.)


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

doozie said:


> Now wait a minute, why would Starbucks even have the policy that the bathroom was for paying customers, unless they knew there would be lots of people in their store that wouldn't be purchasing anything?? Why wasn't this policy stated on signage inside the store, or even a loitering statement. (Which is something I have seen in fast food places)t a
> I've never ever had to be buzzed in or given a code before using a restroom. Maybe a key for a gas station, but purchase was never a condition if my memory serves me.
> I've also brought my own water with me into the grocery store. I have been known to bring a water to a movie theatre too, gum and candy at times too...


OK. Starbucks isn't a movie theatre or grocery store.
I lived in mostly rural areas most of my long life. Some gas stations kept the restrooms locked and if you wanted to use them but were not buying any gas or anything, they would either refuse or give you the hairy eyeball. No way would it be proper to go into a restaurant and use their bathroom, but I doubt anyone would bar you from going into a restroom. More recently, Walmart, McDonalds has enough traffic to not bother restricting restroom usage.
But, in the bigger cities, most gas stations don't have restrooms. Too hard to monitor. But in larger cities is becomes a big deal that you can't step off the street and use any businesses restroom if you aren't a customer. City people understand how this works.
If you brought bottled water or candy into a movie theatre, it is likely you violated their "no food and drink allowed unless purchased here" policy. Sad when common decency requires a posted sign.
"Hands where I can see them", "Hands up", "Stop or I'll shoot.", "Pull over.", "Put the gun down.", "Stop struggling and put your hands behind your back" and " If you don't buy something, you'll have to leave." are all reasonable directives. Ignore them at your own peril.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Just an aside, some States now actually have a bathroom access law on the books for people that have medical conditions. It appears common decency denied a young girl access to the employee bathroom in her time of need. Sad it required a law to be put into place.
I still can not imagine denying someone the use of a restaurant bathroom for any reason.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Not uncommon in my area to see a sign indicating no public restroom. For some reason I think I remember reading restaurants are required to have pubic restrooms though.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> Just an aside, some States now actually have a bathroom access law on the books for people that have medical conditions. It appears common decency denied a young girl access to the employee bathroom in her time of need. Sad it required a law to be put into place.
> I still can not imagine denying someone the use of a restaurant bathroom for any reason.


In some urban areas it is more common to deny bathrooms to non-customers than allow their use.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

doozie said:


> Now wait a minute, why would Starbucks even have the policy that the bathroom was for paying customers, unless they knew there would be lots of people in their store that wouldn't be purchasing anything?? Why wasn't this policy stated on signage inside the store, or even a loitering statement. (Which is something I have seen in fast food places)
> I've never ever had to be buzzed in or given a code before using a restroom. Maybe a key for a gas station, but purchase was never a condition if my memory serves me.
> I've also brought my own water with me into the grocery store. I have been known to bring a water to a movie theatre too, gum and candy at times too...


Have you ever lived in a metro area? Where I'm from practically every place of business that provided restrooms to their patrons had a code or a key. And If you get caught bringing drinks and snacks into the movie theater they can ask you to leave. Some in Chicago dont even allow large purses or bags anymore because of this.

Alpt of times the bathroom issue is because of homelessness. I worked in a few places when I was younger where they will come in and "shower" mess up the bathroom , not clean up after themselves. Or junkies who lock themselves in there to shoot up. In big cities this happens. Alot.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not the issue.
> The issue is remaining once told to leave.
> You know that.


No, not in the posts I was quoting, but you know that too.

I'm utterly amazed at the pettiness of mankind.

When I sarcastically quoted some posts about bathroom policies, I didn't expect a strong defense of something that is almost indefensible.
And yet it was even compared to something worth getting shot over.............





haypoint said:


> If you brought bottled water or candy into a movie theatre, it is likely you violated their "no food and drink allowed unless purchased here" policy. Sad when common decency requires a posted sign.
> "Hands where I can see them", "Hands up", "Stop or I'll shoot.", "Pull over.", "Put the gun down.", "Stop struggling and put your hands behind your back" and " If you don't buy something, you'll have to leave." are all reasonable directives. Ignore them at your own peril.




Talk about common decency.
When people think it might be ok to shoot you for asking to use your restroom, it's time for me to reconsider all memberships I have in the human race.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Hop skip and a jump away from Chicago.
I've even had the audacity to let a small child accompanying his father to an interview use our office restroom.
It's not my common practice to bring things into a theatre, but I don't intentionally hide my water container either, I don't empty my purse just because I'm going to the movies, but the items I carry within it are incidental.
Point being,no big deal the men had water bottles.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> When I sarcastically quoted some posts about bathroom policies, I didn't expect a strong defense of something that is almost indefensible.
> And yet it was even compared to something worth getting shot over.............


His reply was also sarcasm.



farmrbrown said:


> When people think *it might be ok to shoot you for asking to use your restroom*, it's time for me to reconsider all memberships I have in the human race.


No one said any such thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> In some urban areas it is more common to *deny bathrooms to non-customers* than allow their use.


Starbucks originally said that was the policy in that particular store.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> His reply was also sarcasm.
> 
> 
> No one said any such thing.


I sure hope it was, but the other posts didn't seem to be. They seemed to indicate your similar view that merely entering a public accommodation comes with a justified threat of an arrest for trespassing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> They seemed to indicate your similar view that *merely entering* a public accommodation comes with a justified threat of an arrest for trespassing.


And again you misrepresent the truth.

No one was arrested for "merely entering".

Why is it so hard for you to simply be honest?


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Ahhhh, but was that stores policy applied to each and every person that they encountered asking for the code??
They were not arrested for asking to use the restroom.

Take the bathroom out of the incident. That really does not matter.

If they had just walked in, sat down, asked if they wanted anything and replied, we are waiting for our friend to arrive. Would they have been told leave until they get there?
Likewise, if they were told to leave and did, and re entered with their friend, would they have been considered trespassing?


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

If it's a busy locale , then yes, they are taking up table space for paying customers. They could have left when the officers arrived. 



"Officers responded and asked the men *three* times "politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing." *When the men again refused to leave, they were arrested* "without incident," Ross said.

The men were taken to a police station and released when it became clear Starbucks didn't want to press charges.

"They did a service that they were called to do," Ross said of the officers. "And if you think about it logically, that if a business calls and they say that someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business, (officers) now have a legal obligation to carry out their duties. And they did just that."

From:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/us/philadelphia-police-starbucks-arrests/index.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> They were not arrested for asking to use the restroom.


No one was arrested for "asking to use the rest room".



doozie said:


> Take the bathroom out of the incident. That really does not matter.


Correct.
They were told to leave and refused.
That is all that matters.



doozie said:


> *Would they* have been told leave until they get there?


That's pure speculation and means nothing.
The relevant fact is they were told to leave and refused.



doozie said:


> Likewise, if they were told to leave and did, and re entered with their friend, would they have been considered trespassing?


They wouldn't have been "trespassing" on returning *if* they made a purchase.
If they were told to leave again they would once again become "trespassers"

On the other hand, *if they had been told they were "banned"* *and then managed to sneak back in*, then yes they would be "trespassing" and in violation of the rules.

Starbucks originally stated it was the policy of the store to not allow non-customers to use the restrooms and it was the manager's choice as to whether or not they could stay.



> While the company strongly implies the manager violated company policy, nowhere does Starbucks bother to elaborate on its marching orders for dealing with loitering customers.
> 
> In fact, the same *company spokesperson* who said the police should never have been called also said that *the standard policy is to call the police when non-purchasers refuse to leave the store*.
> 
> ...


http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/21/s...d-of-racism-is-probably-has-defamation-claim/

The later decision to not prosecute doesn't change that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Redlands Okie said:


> For some reason I think I remember reading restaurants are required to have pubic restrooms though.


In most places that is a requirement.
The restrooms are for the customers though, and not "the general public".


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

doozie said:


> Ahhhh, but was that stores policy applied to each and every person that they encountered asking for the code??
> They were not arrested for asking to use the restroom.
> 
> Take the bathroom out of the incident. That really does not matter.
> ...


If..if ... If.

When they came in and immediately asked to use restroom. Told it was for paying customer only. and when they sat down they were asked if they wanted to order something. Because they were sitting at a table...they declined and mentioned they already had their own drinks. They were asked to leave after it was clear they were simply taking up space of paying customers. When they refused to leave police were called and then the police asked them 3 times to leave . They refused. 

They are not victims of anything except their own poor judgement.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

All the reports I have read don't have them being asked to leave until the police arrived and arrested them.

I have many times arrived at a restaurant before the rest of my party. I waited until the rest of the party arrived before ordering. Never have I been asked to leave while waiting for the rest of my party. I have even done this while waiting for friends in a Starbucks. Your mileage may vary but these mean were no trespassing with regards to the Corporate policy. The police did what they were asked but they did not have the complete info.


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

I like how they were there on the business deal of there life, and are dressed in sweat pants


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> All the reports I have read don't have them being asked to leave until the police arrived and arrested them.


Then your knowledge is incomplete.

It's clearly stated in the 911 call they were told to "make a purchase or leave" and they refused.

That information has also been posted in these threads.



painterswife said:


> Your mileage may vary but these mean were no trespassing with regards to the *Corporate policy*.


That contradicts what Starbucks said originally about *that particular store*.



> While the company strongly implies the manager violated company policy, nowhere does Starbucks bother to elaborate on its marching orders for dealing with loitering customers.
> 
> In fact, the same *company spokesperson* who said the police should never have been called also said that *the standard policy is to call the police when non-purchasers refuse to leave the store*.
> 
> ...


That has also been posted.



painterswife said:


> The police did what they were asked but they did not have the complete info.


They had all the info needed to make an arrest for trespassing under PA statutes.
And that is what they did.

Anecdotes about your past experiences really have nothing to do with this case.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

And the two men, in their own words, say they were not asked to leave by the manager, only that the restroom was for paying customers. Why wouldn't you give their statement of events up to the police arriving validity?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

doozie said:


> And the two men, in their own words, say they were not asked to leave by the manager, only that the restroom was for paying customers. Why wouldn't you give their statement of events up to the police arriving validity?


Witnesses in the store also said that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

doozie said:


> And the two men, in their own words, say they were not asked to leave by the manager, only that the restroom was for paying customers. Why wouldn't you give their statement of events up to the police arriving validity?


It's doesn't suit their agenda, only the police and Starbuck's staff tell the truth according to some.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Witnesses in the store also said that.


Witnesses don't always know everything.
There were details posted about the case even in this thread that you didn't see.
That doesn't mean they weren't there.

The men involved may or may not be telling the truth.
They still refused to leave when told by the police



Irish Pixie said:


> It's doesn't suit their agenda, only the police and Starbuck's staff tell the truth according to some.


Dueling agendas is a common game.
The facts say they were trespassers under the statutes.



doozie said:


> Why wouldn't you give their statement of events up to the police arriving validity?


They have incentive to lie.
The manager had none.
The police had none.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

What incentive is that? 
Based on what fact? 
What have they actually gained from their experience?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The manager has no incentive to lie is just your opinion and may not be reality.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> The manager has no incentive to lie is just your opinion and may not be reality.


She wanted the men out of her store and the only way to get the cops to come was to tell them the men were asked to leave and wouldn't. Huge incentive to lie and say she told them to leave.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Funny, same people always line up on the same side.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> The manager has no incentive to lie is just your opinion and may not be reality.


That's just your opinion and may not be reality.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *She wanted the men out of her store* and the only way to get the cops to come was to tell them the men were asked to leave and wouldn't. Huge incentive to lie and say she told them to leave.


That's why she told them to leave.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> What incentive is that?
> Based on what fact?
> What have they actually gained from their experience?


Their incentive to lie was an attempt to avoid being arrested for trespassing.
They haven't "gained" anything by refusing to leave or make a purchase.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> She wanted the men out of her store and the only way to get the cops to come was to tell them the men were asked to leave and wouldn't. Huge incentive to lie and say she told them to leave.


Just why would the Store Manager NOT ask them to leave, if she wanted them out of her store? It sounds like you believe that the Store Manager called the Cops and reported that these guys wouldn't leave, but really didn't say anything to them. That makes no sense.

My whole life I have witnessed, either on site or on the news, young Black men resist authority and exacerbate a situation. It appears that when a total lack of respect for all authority exists, a simple "Sir, you are going to have to leave." turns into an arrest. A simple traffic stop turns into an assault on a police officer.
I believe that this Starbucks incident is just another situation where a couple young Black men found themselves in a situation where they were locked into the mindset of resisting authority (Manager) and they continued to resist authority until they were in handcuffs. To their credit, they did go peacefully.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

doozie said:


> Ahhhh, but was that stores policy applied to each and every person that they encountered asking for the code??


 Why must the policy be applied to each and every person?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's doesn't suit their agenda, only the police and Starbuck's staff tell the truth according to some.





doozie said:


> And the two men, in their own words, say they were not asked to leave by the manager, only that the restroom was for paying customers. Why wouldn't you give their statement of events up to the police arriving validity?


 Why would it matter? Everyone seems to agree that the cops asked them to leave three times before arresting them.

I suspect that's why most people belive the manager asked them to leave.
From personal experience Ive seen A ask B to leave, even plead with them many times even to the point of simply repeating the phrase "Just GO" continually and yet they didn't till the cops showed up and asked them just once.

It wouldn't surprise me If other folks have seen the same thing and are applying their experience to their understanding of this situation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


>


What is your opinion of this incident?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Just why would the Store Manager NOT ask them to leave, if she wanted them out of her store? It sounds like you believe that the Store Manager called the Cops and reported that these guys wouldn't leave, but really didn't say anything to them. That makes no sense.
> 
> My whole life I have witnessed, either on site or on the news, young Black men resist authority and exacerbate a situation. It appears that when a total lack of respect for all authority exists, a simple "Sir, you are going to have to leave." turns into an arrest. A simple traffic stop turns into an assault on a police officer.
> I believe that this Starbucks incident is just another situation where a couple young Black men found themselves in a situation where they were locked into the mindset of resisting authority (Manager) and they continued to resist authority until they were in handcuffs. To their credit, they did go peacefully.


Sure it does, to get the cops to come and remove the men. I understand why you want to believe the store manager, and it has everything to do with the color of the two men's skin.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Ummmm. Because it's a policy! Employee's don't get to bend policy to their own whims.

The men and witnesses say they didn't hear the request to leave. Based on your experiences, have you have decided all the what's and whys of of this particular case?

(Just for levity,people around here have called the police on suspicious vehicles parked by their mailbox, they dont confront the driver, just assumed they were up to no good.
Turned out to be the mailman!)


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Just why would the Store Manager NOT ask them to leave, if she wanted them out of her store? It sounds like you believe that the Store Manager called the Cops and reported that these guys wouldn't leave, but really didn't say anything to them. That makes no sense.


You're right it doesn't make sense, not to people like you and me. We are probably alike in that respect. If we have something to say, we say it without hesitation.
But here's something I learned about people that took a while to sink in.
Many people, I dare say most of them, have a tendency to _avoid_ confrontation, sometimes to the extreme.
In plain English, they're just too _scared_ to say anything and would rather someone else do the dirty job of ticking somebody off.
It doesn't make sense to intentionally avoid giving a direct order so that there can be no room for doubt, but I can tell you that isn't they way those that do this look at it.
And it isn't necessarily a gender specific thing, but it is more common in women than in men, from my experience.








AmericanStand said:


> Why would it matter? Everyone seems to agree that the cops asked them to leave three times before arresting them.
> 
> I suspect that's why most people belive the manager asked them to leave.
> From personal experience Ive seen A ask B to leave, even plead with them many times even to the point of simply repeating the phrase "Just GO" continually and yet they didn't till the cops showed up and asked them just once.
> ...




Yep, that's my observation as well. We bring our different experiences to the table when viewing an event.
As to your 1st question, "Why would it matter?" it makes a huge difference in whether the 911 call was legitimate or not.
It doesn't matter *once the cops arrive* - you're leaving one way or another.
But it makes a huge difference in whether the charge turns out to be true or false.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *What is your opinion* of this incident?


It has nothing to do with this thread and is just something you cherry-picked off the internet to promote your agenda.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> Ummmm. Because *it's a policy*! Employee's don't get to bend policy to their own whims.


A Starbuck's company spokesman said the policy in that store was to ask non paying customers to leave. The quotes and links have been posted more than once.

It appears it's really the CEO "bending" policies to suit the situations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But it makes a huge difference in whether the charge turns out to be *true or false*.


We already know it's true they refused to leave when told.
I'm not sure why you keep acting as if it's not been shown.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> (Just for levity,people around here have called the police on suspicious vehicles parked by their mailbox, they dont confront the driver, just assumed they were up to no good.
> Turned out to be the mailman!)


Police will tell you to not confront anyone acting suspiciously and to let them handle it.
If the mailman is driving a different vehicle than usual, it's not unreasonable to make a report since tampering with the mail or mailboxes is a Federal crime.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is your opinion of this incident?


Uncooperative patron


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We already know it's true they refused to leave when told.
> I'm not sure why you keep acting as if it's not been shown.


We know it's true when the cops arrived, no one has disputed that.
Whether it was told to them by the manager and whether it was a legitimate reason has been disputed.
IF that were true, they would have a future court date to attend.
But I do know why you would act as if that hasn't been stated already.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It has nothing to do with this thread and is just something you cherry-picked off the internet to promote your agenda.


BF
That was mine. 

I do think it germane to the subject. 

It shows another patron at another establishment recently in the news. 

I am asking myself why patrons are being uncooperative To the point of arrest 

Maybe someone can offer an explanation. 

Thank you.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

And, once again, it's also been said they were not asked to leave.

I am pretty sure, if this case were to involve a lawsuit, it would only take finding a person admitted to the washroom without a purchase, or finding another patron that had not purchased anything that sat in the store, to call into question the managers actions that day based on "policies" that didn't end up with the police being called.

I've worked in a union situation, the term "past practice" was central to arbitration in some grievances.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is your opinion of this incident?


It's rather difficult to form an opinion without knowing any of the facts of the incident.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure it does, to get the cops to come and remove the men. I understand why you want to believe the store manager, and it has everything to do with the color of the two men's skin.


Seems odd that any manager would resort to a disruptive visit from the Cops, rather that tell them to leave herself. Interesting that repeatedly you rail against folks that make assumptions about what you think, yet here you go again, trying to put ugly thoughts in my head.
If we had all the facts and were shown that this Starbucks kicks out Blacks and lets whites hang out, then I could say that racism is going on here. But you and I don't have those facts. I'd like to claim that since that manager has hired and employs Blacks, that there isn't any race bias. But We aren't given that information.
Do you believe that if the manager had asked them to leave, they would have? Do you believe that those two guys were cooperative with the Cops? It is obvious to most people that the answers are no and no.
This isn't a Greensboro, NC Woolworth protest. It is a couple non-customers, hanging out, drinking the beverages they brought into the store, refusing to make a purchase and refusing to leave.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's rather difficult to form an opinion without knowing any of the facts of the incident.


It is being overshadowed. Honestly, I don't even know why it made the news...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-black-woman-at-waffle-house-sparks-complaint

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2018/04/outrage_growing_over_black_wom.html


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure it does, to get the cops to come and remove the men. I understand why you want to believe the store manager, and it has everything to do with the color of the two men's skin.


LOL wow if that isn't the most racist thing said on this thread!

Ive noticed before that you cant seem to see the difference between racism and recognizing poor.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> It is being overshadowed. Honestly, I don't even know why it made the news...
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482
> 
> ...


Thanks for the better info. My opinion at this point is pretty simple. The Yutes of today's world need to be taught basic manners befor being allowed outdoors to play.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Prices change, mistakes are made and perhaps she should have been charged the 50 cents the previous trip. Perhaps a mistake was made on the 50 cents on the last trip. 
Phone number to corporate is not a secret. If she had a phone to call cooperate then she had all she needed to get corporates phone number. 
No need to cause a scene for the police to show up and once they did why argue to the point of physical confrontation and arrest. Then acting like its everyone else’s fault. People can be interesting.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> IF that were true, they would have a future court date to attend.


Because a business totally wouldn't drop charges in the face of a supposed racism allegation and try to quietly sweep the entire incident under the rug. Lawsuits don't follow the same requirement of evidence as a criminal case. It can't be proven absolutely but it is reasonable to suspect Starbucks is just jumping through hoops to maintain their public image.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

For those that want to question the reasoning behind limiting bathroom access have a look at what kinds of things go on in Philly....

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/mike_newall/opioid-crisis-Needle-Park-McPherson-narcan.html

For those that didn't read they assign someone to watch the bathroom for overdoses. Library staff are trained to administer narcan and they've been taught to recognize the difference between a heroine overdose and fentanyl.


----------



## Vjklander (Apr 24, 2018)

Try some Black Rifle Coffee!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Prismseed said:


> For those that want to question the reasoning behind limiting bathroom access have a look at what kinds of things go on in Philly....
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/mike_newall/opioid-crisis-Needle-Park-McPherson-narcan.html
> 
> For those that didn't read they assign someone to watch the bathroom for overdoses. Library staff are trained to administer narcan and they've been taught to recognize the difference between a heroine overdose and fentanyl.


Not many people questioned the reasoning behind limiting bathroom access. This country boy has been to the big city a time or two.
The Big Easy at Mardi Gras was a blast, but Cleveland in the winter sucks, lol. I'm sure Philly is no slice of heaven either.
But you don't have to go that far to see a sign on the door that says "No public restroom inside" or no restroom at all. I used to ask those places if the clerk peed on the floor or if they had a building inspector come by lately.
Even the Dollar Store between here and town has a locked bathroom you have to ask for a key to use, but it's like that for everyone and you don't have to buy anything to get it, just ask.
The point is consistency, not aberrations.





Prismseed said:


> Because a business totally wouldn't drop charges in the face of a supposed racism allegation and try to quietly sweep the entire incident under the rug. Lawsuits don't follow the same requirement of evidence as a criminal case. It can't be proven absolutely but it is reasonable to suspect Starbucks is just jumping through hoops to maintain their public image.


Is the Philly P.D. a business?
Even if Starbucks dropped the charge, the men also disobeyed police officers orders too.
Maybe it wasn't a decision based on fear, but based on something else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *We know it's true* when the cops arrived, no one has disputed that.
> Whether it was told to them by the manager and whether it was a legitimate reason has been disputed.
> *IF that were true, they would have a future court date to attend.*
> But I do know why you would act as if that hasn't been stated already.


Repeating it endlessly won't make it true.

It's very possible to have a violation without prosecution.
You've said yourself it's called "discretion".



farmrbrown said:


> But it makes a huge difference in whether *the charge* turns out to be true or false.


Not really.
"Charges" are quite often arbitrary and have nothing to do with whether or not there was actually a violation. 

One can be quite guilty and not be charged with anything at all. 
Especially if they think they have fooled everyone.



doozie said:


> And, once again, it's also been said they were not asked to leave.


The only ones saying that were the ones trying to avoid being arrested.
They still refused when the LEO's told them to leave.


----------



## farmgal (Nov 12, 2005)

The world is out of control.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> Is the Philly P.D. a business?
> Even if Starbucks dropped the charge, the men also disobeyed police officers orders too.
> Maybe it wasn't a decision based on fear, but based on something else.


It isn't about fear or 'something else' which you can't even prove outside of paranoia and insecurity.
It is basic police protocol.

The process happens like so.

(contested)Business ask people to leave. 
If they refuse the police are called (happened, there is a dispatch recording of this)
Police, knowing the business does not want them there *asks them to leave*, they refuse.
Police *ask a second time*, they refuse.
Police *ask a third time*, they still refuse.
*At this point it is clear they are wanted off the premises, they are trespassing, they are breaking the law. 
Police are not bouncers it is not their job to simply drag them out of the business and toss them in the street.*
Police arrest them, take them down to the station all per protocol.
After the fact Starbucks decides not to press charges to save themselves from a racism lawsuit. With the sudden withdraw of charges there is no longer any witness or grounds for a criminal triall. The cops did everything by the book, starbucks just changed the game plan.

Even if the reasoning was stupid it met all the requirements for a criminal charge and police gave them ample opportunity to avoid being arrested.


----------

