• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is it time to fine a new coffee place? Starbucks caves...

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
When someone tries to abrogate my rights, then yes, my rights take precedence to me ... don't you stand up for your rights?

You have no right to force Starbucks to stay open. You have no right to force Starbucks to host, or be a stage to, any sort of publicity-generating stunt or political effort. You have no right to force Starbucks to even let you across the threshold.

I don't play to the tune of the GOP ... "ya gotta be sensitive to people who might be a-scared of guns" ooooooooo

Straw man, and conflating "people exercising the right to run their business with a minimum of political controversy associated" with "people who might be 'a-scared' of guns".

I've had people ask me "don't do that, it's upsetting my kids" and I reply "well, go drown them .. there's a small pond over there"

Bully for you. :lol:
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Dave feels that since they serve the public, they should serve Ocers and CCers just like they serve the rest of the public. It is private property serving the public vs private property.. your home, your castle, that doesn't serve the public. He feels that way, and so do I.

So, does that mean McDonald's [strike]should serve[/strike] should be forced to serve people who aren't wearing shirts, or shoes? Are they not part of the public? Are they not exercising a right?
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
So, does that mean McDonald's [strike]should serve[/strike] should be forced to serve people who aren't wearing shirts, or shoes? Are they not part of the public? Are they not exercising a right?

I don't know ... I'll leave that battle up to you. Good luck !
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Speaking of needing luck, how's that forcing property owners to allow political protests (or even OC) going? :p

Beginning stages .... and its not "political protestors" its people carrying, one of their basic civil rights

It new, innovative, and if successful, would be the greatest win for OC/CCers since the dawn of time.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Gents, I strongly suggest you leave Shakespeare's foil to tilt at Cervante's literary windmills. It's nigh impossible to have reasoned discourse with a statist.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
So, does that mean McDonald's [strike]should serve[/strike] should be forced to serve people who aren't wearing shirts, or shoes? Are they not part of the public? Are they not exercising a right?
That's why they have a drive through to serve shirtless/shoeless folks. Don't you think that food stands and restaurants etc... serve nearly nude people on our beaches? They don't have to? But they will have to wait a while to get a fully clothe one.
The reason Dave wants to push for our RTKBA is because they will get MORE customers and a right not exercised, is a right lost... where did I read that? Dave Help. Where did I read that? A liberal would call it discrimination based on.......
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
That's why they have a drive through to serve shirtless/shoeless folks. Don't you think that food stands and restaurants etc... serve nearly nude people on our beaches? They don't have to? But they will have to wait a while to get a fully clothe one.
The reason Dave wants to push for our RTKBA is because they will get MORE customers and a right not exercised, is a right lost... where did I read that? Dave Help. Where did I read that? A liberal would call it discrimination based on.......

Don't confuse me with a leftist, and don't assume that I am willing to justify a second wrong just because someone I don't like committed the first. Together, they don't magically become a right (get it?).

Regarding the drive-thru, what makes you special? Why shouldn't McDonald's have the right to tell you to use the drive thru? Are you saying that your rights are more important? Or is it just the RKBA?
 
Last edited:

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
I was just trying to make a point that you could discriminate just as that Starbucks did. But on the flip side of this issue businesses are forced to discriminate by government: No smoking laws, can't refuse to serve people just because they are homosexuals, transgendered a born again Christian etc... They have the right to sue you, and you could go down the line with government sponsored discrimination that takes away your right as a owner of a private business that serves the public. Dave feels that since they serve the public, they should serve Ocers and CCers just like they serve the rest of the public. It is private property serving the public vs private property.. your home, your castle, that doesn't serve the public. He feels that way, and so do I. So what? Now I am going to write an editor letter in the paper on this issue regarding my local grocery store and why I don't spend most of my allotted grocery money there.

The point is, LA, that that Starbucks location did NOT discriminate. They chose to close so that they would not become the focal point between two opposing factions, and in doing so kept *everyone* out of their store, not just the pro-2A advocates.

As for your other point, the government does not force a business to discriminate, the civil rights laws *keep* businesses from making discriminating decisions solely based on a person's inclusion in any of the protected classes.

What you and the other poster are not appreciating is that a business owner that is open to the public has the right to determine his/her own clientele. While they cannot make entry-exclusion decisions based solely on the protected classes, other than that they can tell you you can't enter because you are wearing a red shirt or because you are blonde ... and they can certainly deny entrance if you are carrying a firearm. That's their right, and your right to carry cannot supersede their right to choose their clientele.

Education is the key. If a business owner denies you entrance because you are carrying a firearm, work to educate him/her about how responsible law-abiding citizens are, and also let them know how much revenue they risk losing because of their prohibition ... especially when they are publicized as anti-gun throughout the pro-2A community.

Trying to force our "rights" against their policy will only engender increased resistance. Take a look at how successful the Virginia pro-2a community has been in getting an anti-2a restaurant owner to reverse his policy and to welcome firearms carriers. It works.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Trying to force our "rights" against their policy will only engender increased resistance.

This is an excellent point, one I had neglected, and one which, years ago, drove me to libertarianism in the first place.

People have a pretty good sense what their rights are. If you act in opposition to their rights, they'll feel it and they'll fight you.

This is why prohibition (of things, like alcohol or drugs) never works, for instance. People actively work against it, as though out of spite (and many more simply ignore it). It's a tendency which likely seems childish to the statists, but which to me is actually quite noble.

Getting along is a two way street, folks. Don't ever forget that. There's a time to righteously demand respect, and there's a time to give others respect, too.

Some folks seem to be much more concerned with the getting part rather than the giving, and seem surprised that there are other people in the world disinclined to such charity.

I submit that OCers are welcome virtually everywhere; that is a war long won - and not through government, but through reason and the good old power of the consumer's wallet. Now might be the time to magnanimously bask in victory, rather than hound the remaining scraps of opposition like so many petulant, spoiled brats who can't bear the thought that anyone still disagrees.

There are other aspects to the right and practicality of carrying a firearm far more worthy of our attention and efforts.
 
Last edited:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
Don't confuse me with a leftist, and don't assume that I am willing to justify a second wrong just because someone I don't like committed the first. Together, they don't magically become a right (get it?).

Regarding the drive-thru, what makes you special? Why shouldn't McDonald's have the right to tell you to use the drive thru? Are you saying that your rights are more important? Or is it just the RKBA?

Now now don't get defensive. Did I say YOU were a leftist? You can walk up to a drive thru and order your food in your swimming trunks and no shoes. No shirt/shoes is for inside. They probably don't want a smelly sweaty person standing in line while others waiting walk out bec of the smell. It might be bec the company has a 'health policy' or other customers might not like the smelly person. Try it yourself. Go to a drive thru with no shirt and shoes and get a meal? No, I am no one special.

I salute for your service to keep me free. What theater?
 
Last edited:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
The point is, LA, that that Starbucks location did NOT discriminate. They chose to close so that they would not become the focal point between two opposing factions, and in doing so kept *everyone* out of their store, not just the pro-2A advocates.

As for your other point, the government does not force a business to discriminate, the civil rights laws *keep* businesses from making discriminating decisions solely based on a person's inclusion in any of the protected classes.

What you and the other poster are not appreciating is that a business owner that is open to the public has the right to determine his/her own clientele. While they cannot make entry-exclusion decisions based solely on the protected classes, other than that they can tell you you can't enter because you are wearing a red shirt or because you are blonde ... and they can certainly deny entrance if you are carrying a firearm. That's their right, and your right to carry cannot supersede their right to choose their clientele.

Education is the key. If a business owner denies you entrance because you are carrying a firearm, work to educate him/her about how responsible law-abiding citizens are, and also let them know how much revenue they risk losing because of their prohibition ... especially when they are publicized as anti-gun throughout the pro-2A community.

Trying to force our "rights" against their policy will only engender increased resistance. Take a look at how successful the Virginia pro-2a community has been in getting an anti-2a restaurant owner to reverse his policy and to welcome firearms carriers. It works.

I agree with your point. But if you just shrug your shoulder and say "ok, I'll leave." and not do something about it, like write a letter to the editor to expose the business, ( isn't that what the libbers do?) the right way your rights will eventually disappear.

Open a business and see what regulations you get slapped with. Ask your local Perkins owner to let you smoke in their premiss. Govt forces you to discriminate.
 

idea(l)s

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
73
Location
, , USA
You can't be serious......either that or you're black jesus' half brother!

You must push for it to be recognized as a civil right. Remember when it was not an individual right?
Remember when it was not applicable to the states?


I don't remember because I am not that old...! [end sarcasm]

Why don't you enlighten us as to when this "civil" right was

1) not afforded to the inhabitants of the states/colonies

2) finally was "voted" in and became "law" throughout the united states
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
Here's the response...

Dear Anmut,

Thank you for your feedback regarding Starbucks' policy on open carry laws. We are heartbroken over the senseless tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

We also deeply respect the views of our customers and recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve. Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.

As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input with their public officials. We are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society and believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.
Thanks again for writing us. If you ever have any questions or concerns in the future, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Sincerely,
Mr. No Answer To Any Questions
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Now now don't get defensive. Did I say YOU were a leftist? You can walk up to a drive thru and order your food in your swimming trunks and no shoes. No shirt/shoes is for inside. They probably don't want a smelly sweaty person standing in line while others waiting walk out bec of the smell. It might be bec the company has a 'health policy' or other customers might not like the smelly person. Try it yourself. Go to a drive thru with no shirt and shoes and get a meal? No, I am no one special.

Excuse me, I was not being defensive, and my questions weren't meant to be accusatory. They were rhetorical questions, designed to elicit thought. I'm sorry if my tone caused them to fail in that regard. The question remains, however. Why is it that McDonalds should be allowed a "health policy" that smelly people may be forced to order outside, but not armed folks? It begs the question: what makes being armed special? Why do you (we) deserve special status?

Even if I were to accept the validity of laws preventing discrimination against, say, blacks (or based on race, as it happens), the difference is that blacks faced overwhelming discrimination and a markedly inferior status. This simply cannot be said for OCers.

So, what makes carrying a gun so special as to warrant being placed alongside those who faced rampant prejudice and discrimination, because a tiny, tiny fraction of establishments have said "no" to our being armed?

I salute for your service to keep me free. What theater?

I suppose you think this has some bearing on the discussion, but I fail to see it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If gun carriers were a monolithic lot, as in a OCer gets insulted, the CCer gets insulted, because the OCer got insulted, then a "boycott" would be meaningful. A Starbucks closes to avoid a kerfuffle because the owner of that Starbucks lives in that q-munity. A bunch of folks, mostly out of towners, get butt-hurt because they can't enjoy a kerfuffle. Meh.

This "story" is retaining traction because many folks just can't remember that property "rights" are in the Founding Document too.

As I have stated, I do not patronize Starbucks [corporate, thus the local franchise] because they actively support politicians who would infringe/eradicate my 2A right, and their over priced-burnt tasting coffee sucks.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
As I have stated, I do not patronize Starbucks [corporate, thus the local franchise] because they actively support politicians who would infringe/eradicate my 2A right, and their over priced-burnt tasting coffee sucks.

This is so entirely reasonable as to be nearly unworthy of discussion.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
Excuse me, I was not being defensive, and my questions weren't meant to be accusatory. They were rhetorical questions, designed to elicit thought. I'm sorry if my tone caused them to fail in that regard. The question remains, however. Why is it that McDonalds should be allowed a "health policy" that smelly people may be forced to order outside, but not armed folks? It begs the question: what makes being armed special? Why do you (we) deserve special status?

Even if I were to accept the validity of laws preventing discrimination against, say, blacks (or based on race, as it happens), the difference is that blacks faced overwhelming discrimination and a markedly inferior status. This simply cannot be said for OCers.

So, what makes carrying a gun so special as to warrant being placed alongside those who faced rampant prejudice and discrimination, because a tiny, tiny fraction of establishments have said "no" to our being armed?



I suppose you think this has some bearing on the discussion, but I fail to see it.
Now you are getting offended.
" Kirk here. Our delegation has tried to educate the Pacifirite peoples that rights have to be fought for. Unfortunately that concept seems foreign to them. We sadly leave them to their own fate for they will not be able stop the rights conquering droids. Spock, de-orbit Pacifiter and set course for earth. Warp4. Kirk out."
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
I think this is an effort to control PR. They did say they wanted to stay out of it and would follow state law. It publicly is better for them not to take a side and with the way these get togethers are billed it makes it look like Starbucks is backing it 100%. They asked to stay out of it they want to close to avoid bad press from gun grabbers then its their right. They are keeping politics separate from their business.

If you want to carry there they are fine with it. They just don't want a rally about how they as a business are supporting one opinion over another.
This^^^^^^. I just dont think they should have publisized it to where it was news. Just get a few people together and go have some coffee. They dont want to be in the middle and publisizing something like that puts them right smack dab in the middle. Just saying.
 
Top