• 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.

what if it was gays instead of guns

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
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.”
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
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:

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
Anyone changed their minds on push the civil rights aspect to carry?

Sexual orientation is protected - carrying a gun is not.

http://www.attorneys.com/discrimination/what-are-protected-classes/


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.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,948
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Sexual orientation is protected - carrying a gun is not.

http://www.attorneys.com/discrimination/what-are-protected-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?
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
If a gay guy "hearing voices" snaps, what is he going to do? Redecorate your living room?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
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...rotest-russias-anti-gay-laws/article14181219/
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.

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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
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.
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
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.
 
Top