Starbucks is caving!

Isn't hounding them to take a stance on guns (maybe not on our end) what made this happen in the first place?
I mean, anti-gunners told them not to allow guns, they said they will follow state laws and will not make a policy one way or the other.
Then they get boycotted, so to show our support we carry in Starbucks to get coffee.
Now the antis are sending e-mail after e-mail and calling and I think I even heard of some threats.
So now the CEO of Starbucks is trying to get out of the middle of a situation he asked to stay out of in the first place and now we won't let that happen.
He only asked that we not carry in Starbucks but said that we will not be stopped if we do.
So why are we doing the same thing the antis did before?
Leave Starbucks out of a debate they want no part of.
If you feel it is necessary not to spend your money at Starbucks then fine, don't do it but quit putting them on the forefront of a fight they want no part of.

Just my 2 cents.

renoglock22 said:

Isn't hounding them to take a stance on guns (maybe not on our end) what made this happen in the first place?
I mean, anti-gunners told them not to allow guns, they said they will follow state laws and will not make a policy one way or the other.
Then they get boycotted, so to show our support we carry in Starbucks to get coffee.
Now the antis are sending e-mail after e-mail and calling and I think I even heard of some threats.
So now the CEO of Starbucks is trying to get out of the middle of a situation he asked to stay out of in the first place and now we won't let that happen.
He only asked that we not carry in Starbucks but said that we will not be stopped if we do.
So why are we doing the same thing the antis did before?
Leave Starbucks out of a debate they want no part of.
If you feel it is necessary not to spend your money at Starbucks then fine, don't do it but quit putting them on the forefront of a fight they want no part of.

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

They tried to sit on the fence and got splinters in their corporate butt for the effort. We didn't start this, the anti's did. He felt he had to make a choice between them or us, he picked them. So be it.

TBG

renoglock22 said:

Isn't hounding them to take a stance on guns (maybe not on our end) what made this happen in the first place?
I mean, anti-gunners told them not to allow guns, they said they will follow state laws and will not make a policy one way or the other.
Then they get boycotted, so to show our support we carry in Starbucks to get coffee.
Now the antis are sending e-mail after e-mail and calling and I think I even heard of some threats.
So now the CEO of Starbucks is trying to get out of the middle of a situation he asked to stay out of in the first place and now we won't let that happen.
He only asked that we not carry in Starbucks but said that we will not be stopped if we do.
So why are we doing the same thing the antis did before?
Leave Starbucks out of a debate they want no part of.
If you feel it is necessary not to spend your money at Starbucks then fine, don't do it but quit putting them on the forefront of a fight they want no part of.

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

Yes, the anti's turned on the spotlight. And some open carriers were caught in it, but Starbucks wisely ignored it, and asked that we ignore the spotlight, too.

Then, some "supporters" of the neutral Starbucks decided to take advantage of the spotlight and show up tacticoolly, including with rifles, and posting pictures of such on the Internet. It because popular to use a modified version of their logo holding guns. None of this supported the neutral position Starbucks wanted, and indeed was exactly the opposite of what they asked.

So now they've decided that being neutral didn't work for them. I commend them for trying it first. But some guys really ruined it for the rest of us. Regardless, the official stance is that all weapons and their carriers are unwelcome. I am therefore unwelcome, and I don't go where I am unwelcome. I especially do not give money to people who have expressed that I am officially unwelcome, regardless of the smile on their face if I ignore their polite request.

The Big Guy said:

They tried to sit on the fence and got splinters in their corporate butt for the effort. We didn't start this, the anti's did. He felt he had to make a choice between them or us, he picked them. So be it.

TBG

Click to expand...

MAC702 said:

Yes, the anti's turned on the spotlight. And some open carriers were caught in it, but Starbucks wisely ignored it, and asked that we ignore the spotlight, too.

Then, some "supporters" of the neutral Starbucks decided to take advantage of the spotlight and show up tacticoolly, including with rifles, and posting pictures of such on the Internet. It because popular to use a modified version of their logo holding guns. None of this supported the neutral position Starbucks wanted, and indeed was exactly the opposite of what they asked.

So now they've decided that being neutral didn't work for them. I commend them for trying it first. But some guys really ruined it for the rest of us. Regardless, the official stance is that all weapons and their carriers are unwelcome. I am therefore unwelcome, and I don't go where I am unwelcome. I especially do not give money to people who have expressed that I am officially unwelcome, regardless of the smile on their face if I ignore their polite request.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Thank you for your POV. The only reason I went to Starbucks was to show my support for their stance on the issue. Now I guess I don't have to go out of my way to spend money there.

Starbucks appears very principled to me. They seem very oriented in running their coffee business. They have been bullied on both side by anti gunners trying to get them to adhere to anti gun values and actions. They are bullied by pro gun folks who insist on doing things at Starbucks that they do not do other places. Starbucks made the statement early on that they do not want to be the "Poster child" for gun anything. The people trying to use Starbucks for a platform (does not matter which way) are wanting to push there views on Starbucks, but when Starbucks has a view they don't like, it is boycott time. That to me is HYPOCRITICAL and embarrassing!

Way to bring so much unwanted attention to Starbucks that they throw us all out.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

Starbucks appears very principled to me. They seem very oriented in running their coffee business. They have been bullied on both side by anti gunners trying to get them to adhere to anti gun values and actions. They are bullied by pro gun folks who insist on doing things at Starbucks that they do not do other places. Starbucks made the statement early on that they do not want to be the "Poster child" for gun anything. The people trying to use Starbucks for a platform (does not matter which way) are wanting to push there views on Starbucks, but when Starbucks has a view they don't like, it is boycott time. That to me is HYPOCRITICAL and embarrassing!

Click to expand...

What Starbucks should have done was trespass those who violated their "no politics here" policy. That includes the a$$holes with the "Baby killer" signs and the a$$holes with the AR-15s.

Instead, they are taking the EASY WAY to side with the anti-gunners.

I completely agreed with their "no politics" policy. But instead of enforce that policy, they changed it to officially anti-gun, and while still with lack of enforcement, it means: "we are officially anti-gun, but will gladly take your money with a smile if you insist."

Who's the hypocrite?

This is what I wrote them, and the canned answer I got. I'm sure everyone got the same answer.


Mr. Shultz Thank you for making clear your request that I no longer open carry my personal protection in or outside of your stores. I have therefore instructed my family, 6 of us, to honor your request and we will no longer be patronizing your establishments nor buying your products from the grocery stores.Don't worry about us though as you have plenty of competition we will have no problem getting our cup of Joe.You state that certain people are uncomfortable with my visible firearm, I guess concealed is ok, but as I am uncomfortable with not being able to provide for the protection of my family and myself while in your stores, I simply can't put us in the position of danger that you require.I have always found it curious that people are not afraid of what they can't see, but are afraid of what they can. I won't bore you with logic as people who are anti rights only operate on emotion and common sense escapes them.Good luck to you sir, I hope for your investors sake it all works out for you.



The answer



Thank you for your email. We recognize that there is significant passion surrounding open carry weapons laws from all sides of this debate. Rest assured your feedback has been documented and will be shared with our leadership team.

The Big Guy said:

The answer



Thank you for your email. We recognize that there is significant passion surrounding open carry weapons laws from all sides of this debate. Rest assured your feedback has been documented and will be shared with our leadership team.

Click to expand...

This is what they really mean:

Thank you for your email. We recognize that there is significant passion surrounding open carry weapons laws from all sides of this debate. Rest assured your feedback has been documented and will be shared with our leadership team. It will be chucked in the recycling bin in the most expedient manner.

Be advised, however, that as long as our bottom line is not going to be affected we don’t really give a rat’s ass if your feelings got hurt and that you feel unwelcome in any of our money making franchise. Let’s face it, some of you nut jobs are going to continue buying our awesome and overpriced coffee no matter what stance we take. And to us, giving us your money is all that matters. Hell, we’ll even take your money if you are carrying a gun in our store, what’s the problem?

We will take you cash cows seriously once you actually show some solidarity and actually make a dent in our cash flow. We are a global network, you can’t stop us. We are in China, for Chrissakes, and we are raking it in! WOOHOO! "No guns, no money"...hah! Pshaw!

Sincerely Yours,
$tarbucks (with special emphasis on “bucks”)

^^ Funny and most likely true!

All the same, I think the long-gun totters might have stooped a bit low by using an unwilling business to counter lobby. As responsible gun owners we hold the onus of being 'non-threating'.

If you know what I mean.

I ignore such policies at any place where I want the product, unless and until someone actually confronts me in an official capacity and makes a personal request.

The people running business can be very reluctant to tell a paying customer to stop being a paying customer.

This "normalizes" OC in the minds of the business and its customers. It won't make hoplophobes like guns, but if they get used to seeing them (and seeing nothing happening), they may lose a little of their phobia.

Besides, other people's immaturity isn't my problem.

DVC said:

I ignore such policies at any place where I want the product, unless and until someone actually confronts me in an official capacity and makes a personal request.

The people running business can be very reluctant to tell a paying customer to stop being a paying customer.

This "normalizes" OC in the minds of the business and its customers. It won't make hoplophobes like guns, but if they get used to seeing them (and seeing nothing happening), they may lose a little of their phobia.

Besides, other people's immaturity isn't my problem.

Click to expand...

Very well stated.

I have a bit of a different view on this issue.

I'll still be going until they exercise their right to trespass me. They aren't going to have a "no guns" policy that isn't REALLY a no guns policy but instead calculated to throw the anti's a bone while not actually changing anything as far as their "policy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6B0Sh-yLNA

We-the-People said:

...not actually changing anything as far as their "policy"...

Click to expand...

I will continue to feel differently. I was officially and publicly welcome in the previous policy. Now, I am officially and publicly told I am no longer welcome.

That is significantly changed, even without fear of legal trespass. I personally feel that the wishes of a property owner are more important than legal technicalities anyway.

If I am ignorant of a policy, I will carry until told otherwise. But I will not go somewhere where I know they have told me (and everyone else) that I am not welcome. There are so many competitors that have not made this change in policy. Why fight so hard to justify patronizing one who did?

MAC702 said:

I will continue to feel differently. I was officially and publicly welcome in the previous policy. Now, I am officially and publicly told I am no longer welcome.

That is significantly changed, even without fear of legal trespass. I personally feel that the wishes of a property owner are more important than legal technicalities anyway.

If I am ignorant of a policy, I will carry until told otherwise. But I will not go somewhere where I know they have told me (and everyone else) that I am not welcome. There are so many competitors that have not made this change in policy. Why fight so hard to justify patronizing one who did?

Click to expand...

The current Federal administration has said that I'm not welcome, because I'm a gun owner, a Christian and I believe in the Constitutional limits on the powers of government.

Why should I consider Starbucks' new policy any more inviolable than the Federal policies?

DVC said:

The current Federal administration has said that I'm not welcome, because I'm a gun owner, a Christian and I believe in the Constitutional limits on the powers of government.

Why should I consider Starbucks' new policy any more inviolable than the Federal policies?

Click to expand...

The difference is extremely significant.

The Federal government works for us.

Starbucks is PRIVATE.

HUGE difference.

I never went to Starbucks because I was unwilling to buy way over priced coffee. After they took a stance for the Second Amendment ignoring the pressure of the anti gunners I started to support them by the purchase of an occasional drink. Encourage other to support them. Now they do not support the Second Amendment and say they prefer customers to enter their facilities extremely limiting their ability to defend themselves. So as I see it, guns were ok, now guns not ok. 180 degree flip flop, a change, a shift, it was ok now not ok, no longer supported, Guns, is you is, is you ain’t? Guns ain’t no more.
It would appear that Starbucks was forced into the gun issue by the loud mouth anti gun movement call for a national boycott and may be somewhat of a victim of circumstance.
However, I believe we want to be careful not to show other large corporations a weakness or a willingness to cave on our Second Amendment rights no matter how softly they word your guns are no longer allowed.

We-the-People said:

I have a bit of a different view on this issue.

I'll still be going until they exercise their right to trespass me. They aren't going to have a "no guns" policy that isn't REALLY a no guns policy but instead calculated to throw the anti's a bone while not actually changing anything as far as their "policy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6B0Sh-yLNA

Click to expand...

I saw that one too.

On a related note and fast becoming one of my favorite youtube guys... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYnT6mjSy84.

Good stuff here.

MAC702 said:

The Federal government works for us.

Starbucks is PRIVATE.

HUGE difference.

Click to expand...

Really buddy?

That the government works for US is = to "Private companies" with responsibilities to share holders are private: both are not about the people, rather, the money.

BTW, when can I get a CCW class from you --even though I'm happily open carrying daily!

Turbod'1 said:

I saw that one too.

On a related note and fast becoming one of my favorite youtube guys... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYnT6mjSy84.

Good stuff here.

Click to expand...

Colion has some good points, misses a few, but generally pretty derned good. Especially for an "NRA guy".

I can't talk to badly about him though, he's following my channel. LOL