Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: what if it was gays instead of guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760

    what if it was gays instead of guns

    NEW YORK (AP) — Starbucks says gays are no longer welcome in its cafes, though it is stopping short of an outright ban on homosexuals.

    The fine line that the retailer is walking to address the concerns of both gay rights and anti-gay advocates reflects how heated the issue has become, particularly in light of HIV outbreaks.

    Most states allow people to openly kiss same sex partners in some way and many companies do not have laws banning gays in their stores. But Starbucks has become a target for gay rights advocates, in part because of its liberal-leaning corporate image. In turn, gay rights advocates have been galvanized by the company’s decision to defer to local laws.


    In an interview, CEO Howard Schultz said the decision to ask gay customers to stop coming into stores came as a result of the growing frequency of “Starbucks Appreciation Days,” in which gay rights advocates turned up at Starbucks cafes .

    Schultz said the events mischaracterized the company’s stance on the issue and the demonstrations “have made our customers uncomfortable.”

    Schultz hopes people will honor the request not to act gay in their stores but says the company will nevertheless serve those who do.

    “We will not ask you to leave,” he said.

    The Seattle-based company plans to buy ad space in major national newspapers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and USA Today on Thursday to run an open letter from Schultz explaining the decision. The letter points to recent activities by both gay rights and anti-gay rights advocates at its stores, saying that it has been “thrust unwillingly” into the middle of the national debate over firearms.

    As for the “Starbucks Appreciation Days” being staged by gay rights advocates, it stresses: “To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores.”


    But the letter notes that Starbucks is standing by its position that the matter should ultimately be left to lawmakers. Schultz also said he doesn’t want to put workers in the position of having to confront homosexual customers.

    The AP was provided a picture of memo to employees on Tuesday. Partners are instructed not to confront customers or ask them to leave solely for being gay or acting gay.

    Several companies do not allow gays in their stores, however, apparently with little trouble. Representatives for Peet’s Coffee & Tea and Whole Foods, for example, said there haven’t been any problems with enforcing their gay bans.

    Shannon Watts, founder of the anti-gay group Moms Demand Action, noted that Starbucks has taken strong stances on other issues. Earlier this year, for example, the company banned smoking within 25 feet of its stores, wherever its leases allowed. The idea was to extend its no-smoking policy to the outdoor seating areas.

    “There’s a big difference in the connotation of a man kissing another man and someone holding a cigarette,” Schultz said.

    Moms Demand Action, which was formed the day after Magic Johnson revealed he had AIDS, has been organizing “Skip Starbucks Saturdays” to urge the coffee company to ban gays at its stores. Participants take photos of themselves at competitors such as Peet’s that do not allow gays and post them online.


    In the meantime, Starbucks has become a symbol for advocates of homosexual rights. A website now even sells products bearing an altered version of the Starbucks logo, with the siren holding up a penis in each hand with the words “I Love Gays & Coffee.”

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Anyone changed their minds on push the civil rights aspect to carry?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    This is the "example" that should be used when the popo show up demanding ID and trampling peoples rights. The cop says "people were alarmed" and called, the reply back from an OCer should be, "If they called alarmed about to gay men holding hands walking down the street, do you respond and demand ID?"

    Lots of things can be offensive/alarming to different people. If they aren't illegal, and more importantly are a RIGHT, back off!
    Last edited by Jeff. State; 09-19-2013 at 08:58 AM.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,615

    Protected classes - civil rights

    Sexual orientation is protected - carrying a gun is not.

    http://www.attorneys.com/discriminat...ected-classes/
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sexual orientation is protected - carrying a gun is not.

    http://www.attorneys.com/discriminat...ected-classes/
    True, carrying a gun is not protected under the statutorily created civil right, but it is protected more so under the Constitutional right.

    To keep it on a square footing for comparison. How about stopping and questioning a black woman, openly wearing a cross around her neck, while voting. Would this not be a Constitutional violation of the 1st. 14th. and 19th. Amendment?

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by 22Luke36 View Post
    IIRC it is Illegal to interfere with a voter.
    Tell that to the cops.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by 22Luke36 View Post
    We know, but many of us think that it should be. I believe that since it's a pre existing right not a granted one, then it should be protected like other natural issues are like color, religion and sex.

    It has been claimed falsely, that people can choose to carry, but they cannot choose to be black. It was once true that a person could not choose their sex, but we see that that has changed. This disproves the prior claim, as does the fact that religion also being a choice, is protected under the law.

    I choose my God and I choose my gun.
    I find it hard to believe sexual orientation was in the bill back in 1964.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    If a gay guy "hearing voices" snaps, what is he going to do? Redecorate your living room?

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Never heard of a bunch of gays going on-line to set up an event where they all met up at Starbucks and hugged and kissed and held hands in an attempt to prove to all the soccermom prudes that it would not cause their kiddies to burst into flames.

    The argument fails.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Never heard of a bunch of gays going on-line to set up an event where they all met up at Starbucks and hugged and kissed and held hands in an attempt to prove to all the soccermom prudes that it would not cause their kiddies to burst into flames.

    The argument fails.
    You must not get out very often. Ive seen a few in person and heard of about 1,000 more.



    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle14181219/

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,615
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Never heard of a bunch of gays going on-line to set up an event where they all met up at Starbucks and hugged and kissed and held hands in an attempt to prove to all the soccermom prudes that it would not cause their kiddies to burst into flames.

    The argument fails.

    stay safe.
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    You must not get out very often. Ive seen a few in person and heard of about 1,000 more.
    Definitely off-topic for this thread - you "cite" isn't at a Starbucks.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Never heard of a bunch of gays going on-line to set up an event where they all met up at Starbucks and hugged and kissed and held hands in an attempt to prove to all the soccermom prudes that it would not cause their kiddies to burst into flames.

    The argument fails.

    stay safe.
    http://www.seattlepride.org/

    True, but they have have parades while nude.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sexual orientation is protected - carrying a gun is not.

    http://www.attorneys.com/discriminat...ected-classes/
    I have no bigoted inclinations toward anybody's orientation sex, ethnic background, gender, etc.

    yet it seems that with all the "protective" classes certain folks end up not protected.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I have no bigoted inclinations toward anybody's orientation sex, ethnic background, gender, etc.

    yet it seems that with all the "protective" classes certain folks end up not protected.
    You are correct the people not protected are the one's that believe in the US Constitution, Liberty, and Freedom.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    http://www.seattlepride.org/

    True, but they have have parades while nude.
    I absolutely refuse to click on the link you provided.

    I'm sure your posting of this link violates some rule on this forum.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Definitely off-topic for this thread - you "cite" isn't at a Starbucks.
    What a load of horse ****. It's completely on topic. I don't think you have a clue what "on topic" and "off topic" even mean - judging from your overall use of the terms here and in other threads. Whether or not it's specifically at Starbucks is entirely and completely irrelevant and for you to say that the example doesn't "qualify" somehow because it isn't at Starbucks is absolutely asinine. If that's what you think, then you do not yourself understand the "topic" of this thread. Fix your understanding, don't accuse the topic creator of not knowing what he made his own thread about.

    How about Chick-fil-a (might have been the picture onus posted)

    All they (or the CEO, or whoever it was) said was that they support traditional marriage, and an entire army of homosexuals came out of the woodwork. It certainly goes both ways with stuff like this. I'm not saying the pro-gun community should have demonstrated like they did, just that, yeah, they're being scrutinized very differently, and potentially a bit unfairly.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Definitely off-topic for this thread - you "cite" isn't at a Starbucks.
    This thread is about showing how its okay to discriminate against gun owners but its illegal to discriminate against gays.

    There are thousands and thousands of public events where gays intentionally engage is public displays of affection to get their point across and make a statement.

    This is on topic.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    What a load of horse ****. It's completely on topic. I don't think you have a clue what "on topic" and "off topic" even mean - judging from your overall use of the terms here and in other threads. Whether or not it's specifically at Starbucks is entirely and completely irrelevant and for you to say that the example doesn't "qualify" somehow because it isn't at Starbucks is absolutely asinine. If that's what you think, then you do not yourself understand the "topic" of this thread. Fix your understanding, don't accuse the topic creator of not knowing what he made his own thread about.

    How about Chick-fil-a (might have been the picture onus posted)

    All they (or the CEO, or whoever it was) said was that they support traditional marriage, and an entire army of homosexuals came out of the woodwork. It certainly goes both ways with stuff like this. I'm not saying the pro-gun community should have demonstrated like they did, just that, yeah, they're being scrutinized very differently, and potentially a bit unfairly.
    Chick Fil a is a good example. After their public comments I went to a few protests and demonstrations where gays kissed and picketed in front and inside of the store.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,615
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    This thread is about showing how its okay to discriminate against gun owners but its illegal to discriminate against gays.

    There are thousands and thousands of public events where gays intentionally engage is public displays of affection to get their point across and make a statement.

    This is on topic.
    When it becomes illegal to discriminate against gun owners as a protected class, then it will become a valid comparison.

    As it is gun owners are of various sexual orientations, races, and religious affiliations and their gun ownersip has nothing to do any of these.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,615
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    --snipped-- It's completely on topic. I don't think you have a clue what "on topic" and "off topic" even mean - judging from your overall use of the terms here and in other threads. Whether or not it's specifically at Starbucks is entirely and completely irrelevant and for you to say that the example doesn't "qualify" somehow because it isn't at Starbucks is absolutely asinine. If that's what you think, then you do not yourself understand the "topic" of this thread. Fix your understanding, don't accuse the topic creator of not knowing what he made his own thread about.
    Strange how when some people don't see the response they want, they get insulting and derisive - doing so is very bad manners.

    There have been so many threads about Starbucks recently, the OP included Starbuck's and responded to Skidmark's post which directly referenced Starbuck's, it was logical to conclude that was the OP was pointing at Starbuck's intentionally.

    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    This thread is about showing how its okay to discriminate against gun owners but its illegal to discriminate against gays.
    --snipped--
    This is on topic.
    There is no "discrimination" against gun owners - again they are not a protected class. The comparison is not valid.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    This thread is about showing how its okay to discriminate against gun owners but its illegal to discriminate against gays.

    There are thousands and thousands of public events where gays intentionally engage is public displays of affection to get their point across and make a statement.

    This is on topic.
    But nobody is discriminating against gun owners. And yes, since specific legislation was passed, it is illegal to discriminate against gays in certain specific areas of life. As has been said before, pass a law making it illegal to discriminate against gun owners and it will be illegal to discriminate against gun owners.

    And can we please remember that we gun owners turned Starbucks from a place selling crappy coffee at exhorbitant prices into the stage for our desire to flaunt our guns i the collective faces of the hoplophobes. That we were generally more polite and less destructive of private property than those who opposed us is not relevant.

    In hind sight, would it have been better to take our flaunting to the public parks? Well, unfortunately, in some places there are laws that kept our guns out of the parks. Why pick on Starbucks instead of, for example, 7-11? Or Walmart? Or the local laundramat?

    Starbucks is not discriminating against gun owners. They are asking that gun owners stop making it more difficult to sell overpriced and crappy coffee without interference from folks pushing some agenda other than drinking crappy overpriced coffee.

    So quitchebitchin.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    But nobody is discriminating against gun owners.
    Lots of business do in fact discriminate against gun owners. There are thousands of business across America that post signs saying no guns allowed. That is the same as a business posting a sign that says "no gays allowed" or "no blacks allowed".

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,615

    Picking Nits

    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Lots of business do in fact discriminate against gun owners. There are thousands of business across America that post signs saying no guns allowed. That is the same as a business posting a sign that says "no gays allowed" or "no blacks allowed".
    Both of us know full well the meaning of "discrimination" and the difference between those things that are legal and those that are not. Your reply is totally devoid of accuracy as it applies here and you are simply playing with semantics for its own sake, arguing for the sake of arguing. Legal actions are decidedly not the same and those prohibited.


    Discrimination = action or policies based on prejudice or partiality.

    discrimination
    n. unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex or sexual orientation. The rights to protest discrimination or enforce one's rights to equal treatment are provided in various federal and state laws, which allow for private lawsuits with the right to damages. There are also federal and state commissions to investigate and enforce equal rights.
    See also: civil rights
    http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=532

    A No Guns decision by a private property owner is no different than their deciding "No Shoes. No shirt, No service" = not illegal, completely within their rights.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I absolutely refuse to click on the link you provided.

    I'm sure your posting of this link violates some rule on this forum.
    I check to make sure the direct link was 'clean' first. I didn't want to show anything that would require eye bleach.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    SNIP


    There is no "discrimination" against gun owners - again they are not a protected class. The comparison is not valid.
    Why are those who believe in keeping the tools of self defense on hand not a protected class?

    The comparison is VERY valid.

    The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out as to be never infringed.

    The government issues licenses to engage in (corporate) commercial business. If a business does discriminate against a 'protected class' it can lose the license to do business.

    Since the licenses are government controlled it would be reasonable to believe that the RTKA extends into ANY establishment that exists only through the fact that there is a government issued license (permission) to exist. Since they cannot exist without government permission then they should not be able to discriminate in anyways shape or form that the government cannot.

    Why does no-one look into the license aspect of this argument? What is wrong with it?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •