Guns no longer welcome at Starbucks

Queen_of_Thunder said:

BTW is there any dfference in saying no blacks,no whites, no asians or any other group of people.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is.

You can't decide not to be your ethnicity. You can disarm yourself. One is banning the person, the other is prohibiting an item.

While I think neither should be law, there is certainly a difference.

lwsimon said:

Yes, there is.

You can't decide not to be your ethnicity. You can disarm yourself. One is banning the person, the other is prohibiting an item.

While I think neither should be law, there is certainly a difference.

Click to expand...

...and we aren't talking about laws here, anyway.

They weren't pro or anti anything. Now they are leaning toward the anti side of things by not allowing OC even though it is otherwise legal.

Click to expand...

It looks to me that they are pleading for OC'ers to stop making this a spectacle, not posting their stores no-carry-allowed. There is a huge difference, especially since they have not given in to the anti's and banned CCW.

When Starbucks stood up for us against the antis trying to get them to post no-carry, we did a great job thanking and supporting them and (overall, I think) making them feel it was the right business decision. But it appears some who claim to be on our side will not be satisfied until Starbucks either takes a firm pro-OC stand or else posts no-carry, and that is incomprehensibly stupid from both a tactical and a strategic standpoint.

But it appears some who claim to be on our side will not be satisfied

Click to expand...

That's a very, very important thing for people to grok in general.

It's fair and reasonable to require that people not interfere with your peaceable expression of your prerogatives.

Requiring them to be in enthusiastic agreement with you on whatever your agenda is steps over the line of what you can expect from your fellow men in an ideologically diverse society.

For example,

It's OK for people to be tree hugging commies, and for them to try to persuade you to voluntarily join the commune, as long as they go away when you ask them to. It's not OK for them to advocate governmental policies to use the majesty and force of law to bring the commune to you.

See the difference?

It's been beaten to death, but I'll chime in too.
They're a business. They sell coffee and make a profit. That's why they are there. They're fed up with both sides of the issue singling them out to make a statement. They just want to do business.

And just an FYI, for those saying they won't pay $5 for a cup of coffee, only the specialty stuff is that expensive. Regular coffee is $1.75 - $2.10. The other stuff isn't coffee anyway. Still a little steep, but less than half what many thinks it is. I patronize them and will continue to do so, because I go there for coffee, imagine that.

This is a perfect example of how over-zealous open carry activists have managed to screw things up.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4

warp said:

What would you have done?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have done anything. I didn't see a problem with the previous policy. In fact, it is my opinion that most businesses should use the "follow the local law" policy. In a sense, it allows you, as a business owner, to be neutral and the law becomes responsible for the things that are legally allowed to transpire.

If the problem is being in the spotlight, I don't see how alienating a section of your customer base accomplishes this. IMO, remaining neutral was the best thing they could have continued to do in regards to their customers. And I don't have an immediate solution as to how to remove the brand from the spotlight or how much of a problem that really was anyway.

I'll be getting a latte today still; my 442 will be concealed on my person.
I think OC for the sake of OC is stupid anyhow.

Blue Brick:

So what…..Starbucks has overpriced coffee and their store is full of tree hugging wimpy mother earth loving dirt head communist hippies.

Click to expand...

Sarcasm is my favorite form of humor. You definitely made me smile with that one. For my part, I like McDonalds' coffee, so Starbucks doesn't need to worry about me. Hippies?! Are there any hippies still alive?! I thought they were extinct. You did forget to add in a jab against bell bottom jeans, though, and love beads.

Geno

You get enough yahoos carrying AR15s into Starbucks to make a political statement, it was just a matter of time.

It is a business. One that is/was very reasonable on their policies. They exist to make money, not serve as a stage on which to make political statements. Unfortunately I can't blame them.

hso said:

Starbucks is asking people not to make their stores political stages, just as they might if they asked advocates of other political issues to not use their businesses as soap boxes.

Click to expand...

Really? Do you have information that isn't publically available? This is what they wrote:

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but being told I can no longer bring my firearm to their stores means they are taking a position against lawfully carried firearms. I don’t see anything in their letter to support your assertion. If they merely wanted people to stop using their stores as a soapbox, the letter would have been written that way. They've taken a position.

Also, by saying that it’s OK for police officers to carry there means they aren’t against guns but against citizens with guns. I find that reprehensible.

Further, since they won’t be providing an alternative, such as providing storage for the firearm I’m already carrying, that they prefer I leave it in my car or, if I didn’t drive there, that I simply take my business elsewhere. I’ll be happy to do the latter either way.

Justin said:

This is a perfect example of how over-zealous open carry activists have managed to screw things up.

Click to expand...

This.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...-please-starbucks-tells-customers?ft=1&f=1001

Here is a better article explaining what is going on.

In short- Starbucks is posting publicly that they would like people not to bring guns into their stores. They are not Posting Legally, so no signs are going up, and their staff have been instructed not to deny service to anyone simply because they are armed.

The whole reason this happened is because instead of just being happy with their sensible policy about guns, a lot of open carry activists decided that they were going to show their 'support' by having lots of openly armed people congregate at their stores.

Obviously this brings attention to Starbucks that they don't want and interferes with their objective of selling coffee as supporters and opponents flock to their stores not to buy coffee and mind their own business, but to make a political statement with Starbucks in the middle.

I really think organizing an Open Carry rally where a large group of people were going to carry modern sporting rifles into the Starbucks in Newtown, CT was probably the turning point here. That sort of "advocacy," while protected by the first and second amendments, is deliberately inflammatory and counterproductive. It alienates fence-sitters instead of bringing them over to our side.

While this is a disappointing policy choice by Starbucks, and ultimately the fault for that decision lies with Starbucks, some really over-aggressive and counterproductive tactics from the fringe of the pro-2A side did contribute to the current situation.

I don't know about you, but being told I can no longer bring my firearm to their stores means they are taking a position against lawfully carried firearms. I don’t see anything in their letter to support your assertion. If they merely wanted people to stop using their stores as a soapbox, the letter would have been written that way. They've taken a position.

Click to expand...

"we are respectfully requesting ". Do I need to post the definition of "requesting"?

They are simply trying to find the most neutral ground they can after being dragged into this debate.

Alright. You take a company who takes a good (and safe ) position on a hot political issue. They decide to abide by state law and stay out if it. People then act like they are champions to the cause, waaaay over do it by parading them into the center of the issue. Then when they tell you they don't want the attention, call them back stab ers. Geeeez. I gues there is good and bad on both sides. It's an uphill battle for pro gun rights from outside and inside our own backyard.

True I do recall the anti's flaring up first when Starbucks decided not to post. But still.

Of course, some in here are ignoring this from the letter:

Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

Click to expand...

So some of you want to place the blame on peaceful lawful people vs the hostile protesters who were actually confronting the first group and the disinterested majority of people who just wanted a cup of hot frothy milk with a little coffee in it?

He is acting very reasonably. HERE'S WHY: 1) Starbucks has previously had an entirely neutral stance on firearms. Having pro-gun rallies there is a blatant attempt to scare the antis. 2) It would have been smarter on the part of gun owners to ONLY open carry there if they normally open carry on a daily basis. We should have treated Starbucks for what it is, a gun-neutral business. The anti's could have tried to sensationalize it all they want, but we should have just ignored them by simply continuing to go about our daily routines, not by combating them.

Starbucks chose a gun-neutral stance to avoid any conflict, which was smart. And yet, rabid antis managed to get an exaggerated reaction out of some gun owners (carrying AR15s is obviously not a daily routine for virtually anyone), which caused conflict. If only we had ignored the antis, only one side of the argument would have been speaking, and I believe Starbucks would have seen that and ignored their unwarranted rambling too. Now Starbucks has taken another step to ensure that conflict is minimized.

If we don't want to be painted in a negative light by the anti-gun groups, should we not respect the wishes of property owners to not carry our guns on their property?

Click to expand...

It shouldn't have anything to do with not wanting to be painted in a negative light by anti-gun groups. We already have that distinction just by being gun owners.
We should respect people's wishes regarding their property because it's the right thing to do. If you aren't willing to go unarmed into the store, that is your right too. Use the drive through, or go somewhere else if you prefer. They're not the only ones who sell coffee.

I read his statement and am a little confused because even though it states open carry a few times it also states that they would appreciate if you would leave your gun in your car.

Then I found this quote in a interview:

"Both sides of the issue have staged events at Starbucks, so our company has been characterized as pro and anti-gun, but we're neither'" insists Schultz. "Very few issues are as emotional or as polarizing as this."

Unlike the NO SMOKING signs currently posted in its stores, there will be no signs posted that specifically state that guns are not welcome.

"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. " We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "we'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."

Schultz insists that his decision was not bottom-line driven. A recent "Skip Starbucks Saturday" sponsored by a gun control group had no impact at all on sales, he says.

Rather, he says, Starbucks has had "a number of episodes" in its stores over the past few months regarding guns "that made our customers feel quite uncomfortable."

As a result, Schultz says, Starbucks has heard from numerous customers who don't want guns in the stores. He declined to state how many. But, he says, "it got my attention."

Schultz declined to state if he carries — or has ever carried — a gun. "This isn't about me, he says. "It's about the company."



Link to article

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/18/starbucks-coffee-guns-ceo-schultz/2829937/