Starbuck's Caving In

[cobber]

Yes, because discriminating againsts minorities is just like discriminating against gun owners.

Please don't say that sort of thing in public. You end up alienating people and giving gun owners in general a bad reputation.

A civil right is a civil right. Or are some civil rights more equal than others?

After all, it's SB business, I guess they can play any game they like, right?

If anyone is alienated by my comment, they can take a deep breath and grow up.

 

[jrogers]

Interpret it however you wish...that's what I did.

Obviously.

The issue is that your interpretation is not consistent with reality. Text often encodes more than one level of meaning, but imposing meaning without textual support isn't productive in the context of a discussion with other humans.

Feel free to interpret that however you wish.

A civil right is a civil right. Or are some civil rights more equal than others?

After all, it's SB business, I guess they can play any game they like, right?

If anyone is alienated by my comment, they can take a deep breath and grow up.

Say what you like. I'm just letting you know that comparing the plight of the guy whose sidearm is nominally unwelcome at Starbucks is not comparable in the least to centuries of discrimination against minorities in the US. Drawing an equivalence between the two is not productive, and those who are aware of the second and not especially sympathetic toward the first will not be won over with that rhetoric.

 

[canterbc]

You are correct. Another article I read quoted their CEO, Howard Shultz, said the decision to ask customers to not bring guns "came as a result of the growing frequency of "Starbucks Appreciation Days," in which gun rights advocates turned up at Starbucks cafes with firearms." The article went on to say Schultz sad the events mischaracterized the company's stance on the issue and the demonstrations "have made our customers uncomfortable."

I second your sentiment. Just because it is legal doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, it's a dupe, not that dupes are so bothersome. Too much PIA to post the link from my phone but I think it's in the political forum.

 

[churchmouse]

Did a search, didn't see it. This is why open carry advocates (not individuals who really feel the need, but "that guy" who straps an ar to his back to prove a point) tick me off.

everything is legal until it is not. Laws can be changed, Had we just left starbucks out of it there wouldnt be this change. Ugh.

BBC News - Starbucks asks customers not to bring guns into outlets

Give that guy an opportunity and he will take it no matter the outcome.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Obviously.

The issue is that your interpretation is not consistent with reality. Text often encodes more than one level of meaning, but imposing meaning without textual support isn't productive in the context of a discussion with other humans.

Feel free to interpret that however you wish.

And sometimes the meaning is there, underlying the "textual support". You apparently choose to believe the CEO's letter at face value. I don't.

 

[cobber]

The issue is that your interpretation is not consistent with reality. Text often encodes more than one level of meaning, but imposing meaning without textual support isn't productive in the context of a discussion with other humans.

Say what you like. I'm just letting you know that comparing the plight of the guy whose sidearm is nominally unwelcome at Starbucks is not comparable in the least to centuries of discrimination against minorities in the US. Drawing an equivalence between the two is not productive, and those who are aware of the second and not especially sympathetic toward the first will not be won over with that rhetoric.

My "interpretation is not consistent with reality"? Erm, who made you the judge of "reality"?

Millenia of oppression by the state against the serf. The nobles were entitled to be armed, but not the common man. And you think that's not how the political class would like it again?

Your view of civil rights is firmly ensconced in 20th century American sensibilities.

Disarm the population, and we're back to square one. Oh, and the state designates who is entitled to freedom of the press. Can't happen here I'm sure.

 

[cobber]

Kind of like a dupe maybe...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/313785-starbucks-caving-5.html

Or something.

 

[netsecurity]

My "interpretation is not consistent with reality"? Erm, who made you the judge of "reality"?

Millenia of oppression by the state against the serf. The nobles were entitled to be armed, but not the common man. And you think that's not how the political class would like it again?

Your view of civil rights is firmly ensconced in 20th century American sensibilities.

Disarm the population, and we're back to square one. Oh, and the state designates who is entitled to freedom of the press. Can't happen here I'm sure.

I happen to agree with this in general. Gun ownership is very much a civil right. However, we can take our gun off at any time, and still be otherwise free, so obviously there is a difference between it and, say, apartheid. But I do not think it is wrong to compare the two.

People get thrown off of busses or ejected from stores for carrying a weapon for the purpose of defending their life and their family's lives. It should be a noble cause, not one frowned on and deserving of picket signs and loud mouth protesters. The question is, do we deserve the right to preserve life and liberty? The Constitution says we do, but the government, and now Starbucks wishes we would just succumb to the criminal element.

 

[lucky4034]

Starbucks could give a **** about your gun rights... anyone who ever thought differently was fooled. They want the money....

Last time they welcomed state law abiders... and gun carriers went there in droves and bought coffee = $$$
This time they don't want guns... and this time anti-gunner will go there in droves and buy coffee = $$$

Which doesn't matter because anyone who pays $$$ for a cup of coffee is a fool anyway

 

[downlinx]

You knew this would happen. First they didn't want straight or lawfully married couples money and now they do not want gun owners money. It was bound to happen, liberalism at its finest is hard at work. I for one never supported such a company, ever, but looks like I am stopping a dunken dougnut to pick up a couple cups of coffe.

 

[nakinate]

Just another reason for me to go to Noble Coffee instead. Their coffee is better anyhow.

 

[churchmouse]

Starbucks could give a **** about your gun rights... anyone who ever thought differently was fooled. They want the money....

Last time they welcomed state law abiders... and gun carriers went there in droves and bought coffee = $$$
This time they don't want guns... and this time anti-gunner will go there in droves and buy coffee = $$$

Which doesn't matter because anyone who pays $$$ for a cup of coffee is a fool anyway

Some truth in this.
I do not pay that much for coffee. Make my own and it is good enough for me. I avoid business that bans carry but CC anyway if I have to go into one.

 

[netsecurity]

Would Dunkin donuts appreciate a gun appreciation day?

How many people were shot in Starbucks when all those guns were there? I mean, don't the liberals always say that more guns = more murders? So how many of those guns went berzerk really? Did someone shoot a hole in their floor or something? Why did Starbucks not like the gun appreciation day? Did other customers leave when they saw reputable adults wearing holstered sidearms?

 

[lyons0425]

Very Frustrating...Here is the letter I just sent via email.

I am a Biomedical Engineer. I am a Volunteer Firefighter. I am a licensed handgun carrying citizen of the State of Indiana. I WAS a gold card carrying patron of Starbucks. I was a member of the silent majority of your patrons that support second amendment rights and day in / day out enter your stores armed. I choose to be prepared. I choose not to be a victim. I choose to no longer increase your revenue with my hard earned money. Your previous neutral stance was empowering to both sides of this argument as it allowed us both to equally partake in the starbucks experience while not feeling admonished. Now you have chosen sides, not by openly banning firearms in your store, but by asking citizens who choose to exercise each and every right they have, to give up this one, just for a little bit while you are in our store. In my eyes and many others who carry, you would have been better to just ban firearms all together. At least you would have picked a side completely instead of half heartedly. In my opinion you have made a decision based on the groups that yell the loudest. Ask each and every one of your gold card members to take a survey, I’d be interested to find out what the results were. It is my position to ask you to return to your previous state of following the laws that are in place in the states in which you operate. This allows for all citizens to take part in the great service that I am accustomed to. I will miss laughing with the baristas in the morning as I wait for my coffee, I’m sure they will miss my tips.

 

[lucky4034]

If you carry a gun... you shouldn't be buying a Venti Mochacoca Latte w/ Extra Froth for $5.95 anyway


Next time you're standing in line ready to shill out $4 for a cup of coffee... pause and think "What would Clint Eastwood do?"

 

[lucky4034]

See... this guy is holding a frothy coffee with a J-Frame in his lap that is pointing at the direction where his genitals used to reside. You don't want to be THAT GUY!!

 

[cobber]

If you carry a gun... you shouldn't be buying a Venti Mochacoca Latte w/ Extra Froth for $5.95 anyway


Next time you're standing in line ready to shill out $4 for a cup of coffee... pause and think "What would Clint Eastwood do?"

That venti would pay for not just a few bullets...

 

[ViperJock]

Basically this is a case of house guests becoming a nuisance. Gun owners should have counted the small victory and gone in as usual, but they grossly misunderstood the policy of "we follow local law" to be "we support a crapload of open carry ninjas descending en masse and disturbing the majority of our liberal customer base."

gunowners forced their hand. The liberals are the beloved daughter. We were the houseguest. Guess who will win? We have only ourselves to blame. Starbucks is a business they can't afford to lose the liberal customer base.

 

[jrogers]

And sometimes the meaning is there, underlying the "textual support". You apparently choose to believe the CEO's letter at face value. I don't.

This has nothing to do with "face value" and everything to do with how the sentence is constructed. There simply is no support for your bizarre reading.

My "interpretation is not consistent with reality"? Erm, who made you the judge of "reality"?

Go read my post again. That was clearly not directed at you.

Millenia of oppression by the state against the serf. The nobles were entitled to be armed, but not the common man. And you think that's not how the political class would like it again?

Your view of civil rights is firmly ensconced in 20th century American sensibilities.

Disarm the population, and we're back to square one. Oh, and the state designates who is entitled to freedom of the press. Can't happen here I'm sure.

Were the year 1513 and not 2013 this would be a legitimate rebuttal.

Starbucks could give a **** about your gun rights... anyone who ever thought differently was fooled. They want the money....

Last time they welcomed state law abiders... and gun carriers went there in droves and bought coffee = $$$
This time they don't want guns... and this time anti-gunner will go there in droves and buy coffee = $$$

Which doesn't matter because anyone who pays $$$ for a cup of coffee is a fool anyway

You are correct in that they don't give a darn about gun rights. Like any corporation they are only interested in profitability.

You are correct in that their product is overpriced.

You are only half correct in your middle statements: Starbucks still wants gun owners to buy coffee. They don't care if you carry a gun into their stores. The memo says as much. Most of the posters in this thread are melting down over a PR move designed to shut up both sides without functionally changing anything at all about how going to starbucks, armed or not, actually works. Starbucks doesn't want any more drama. I don't blame them. I woudln't want people holding pro-OC rallies on my private property either if I were running a non-gun-oriented business.