• 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.

Poll - anyone been at starbucks OCing since the new policy? how was it

Been Back to Starbucks after new policy?

  • Yes - same as before - no problems

    Votes: 9 22.5%
  • Yes - staff not friendly to me as before

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - but kicked out by staff

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - but hasstled by non-staff (other cust)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - cops called but I stayed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes- cops called and I left

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No - have not been back

    Votes: 31 77.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
No, I haven't.

It would be disrespectful, IMNSHO.

It would say I don't care what you want; only what I want.

I'll respect Schultz's wishes. My money, my firearm, and my person will stay away.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
If you are a gun owner and you continue to support a company that made it clear gun owners are not welcome, shame on you.
 

Resto Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
223
Location
right here
No shortage of places to buy coffee in my city, including a few Starbucks. What Starbucks does or does not like won't alter my life or habits one bit.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
Just got back from a coffee, and bagel, at a Starbucks just off I-64, and Winchester RD, in Lexington (Ky), I was OC'ing my Hi-point .40SW, spent the time with a new friend and potential political staffer, who also OC'd, but used his S&W 500 revolver. The Assist. Manager thanked us for carrying, and expressed that she didn't agree with Corporate, she also mentioned that she, and her manager both support Open Carry, and we're always welcome back anytime. She also was amused by my paying with 2$ bills xD.
 

Resto Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
223
Location
right here
It is sad when one wants his rights respected, but won't respect the property rights of others.

In the event that was directed towards me, let me clarify that I do not, and have not, frequented Starbucks. If I want coffee (and I very rarely do), I have options other than going to the cinnamon latte frappuccino grande' espresso with whipped cream on top chain.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
In the event that was directed towards me, let me clarify that I do not, and have not, frequented Starbucks. If I want coffee (and I very rarely do), I have options other than going to the cinnamon latte frappuccino grande' espresso with whipped cream on top chain.

It is directed at those folks who have carried or intend to carry into SB, despite having been explicitly asked not to do so. Their rights are no more important than SB's.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
It is directed at those folks who have carried or intend to carry into SB, despite having been explicitly asked not to do so. Their rights are no more important than SB's.

The word you'd most likely should have used was 'implicitly', as in, implied, which is more subtle than, and more suited to your phrase and the comments/stated policy of SB, than 'explicit'. Learn the difference.

That being said, if someone parks in the parking lot of a Starbucks, carrying openly, they approach the front entrance, there are NO gunbuster signs, they enter, they order a coffee and a bagel, the person at the register has a name tag with "Assist. Manager" on it, says "I appreciate y'all carrying, my boss n' I are big supporters of open carry, and you an' your friend are welcome back anytime!" you thank her for her support, then pay for your purchase with three 2$ bills, and then she says "Awww! These are so cute! my niece loves these" then you give her an extra one as a 'tip'.

Is that trampling on the rights of Starbucks?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Read the letter again. No implication. Straight-out asked--as is their RIGHT.

Respect their rights or you have no claim to be a supporter of Liberty. You are simply a supporter of what YOU want to do.

Moving on.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
Read the letter again. No implication. Straight-out asked--as is their RIGHT.

Respect their rights or you have no claim to be a supporter of Liberty. You are simply a supporter of what YOU want to do.

Moving on.

I really like how you respected my right to an opinion in compliance with the stated private property rules of this forum, by crapping on it, and moving forward like "No f-cks given" in an attempt to make yourself look wiser, and the better man, instead of addressing the fact that the operator's agent, and secondary agent, of that property, explicitly welcomed the carrying of firearms in that particular location, which they run, and manage.

But, that doesn't matter, because what you say is automatically right, and nothing anyone else says in defense of their actions, to your charges of disrespecting the rights of others, even matters.

How about you try to at-least practice what you preach, and learn to respect someone else, before you whine and cry about disrespect and personal irresponsibility. Or is that beneath you?
 
Last edited:

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
728
Location
NE Ohio
I the operator's agent, and secondary agent, of that property, explicitly welcomed the carrying of firearms in that particular location, which they run, and manage.

But do not own, and therefore cannot set policy or rules contrary to those made by the company. Since by your account they did just that, they are disrespecting the company's stated wishes as much as you did.

In case you missed the point, since you knew the policy explicitly stated (yes, explicit, not implicit, look it up) was that firearms were not welcome you don't need a gunbuster or any other signage. You, by your own admission ignored the policy and were purportedly told by an *assistant* manager that it was OK, and on his word that it was OK with the *manager*. None of those individuals are able to override company policy set by their superiors. Were they managers at my company and I found out that they blatantly disregarded my expressly stated policy and did so publicly in front of a customer, they would be fired on the spot.

So, to put a fine point on it, you disregarded the rights of the company. To answer your question "Is that trampling on the rights of Starbucks? " why yes, yes it is. If you still can't see it after the explanation I provided, then I don't know how to better explain it.

(Gah! I can't believe I'm defending the rights of an anti-gun company over their pro-gun management. Distasteful on the one hand, necessary on the other.)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I really like how you respected my right to an opinion in compliance with the stated private property rules of this forum, by crapping on it, and moving forward like "No f-cks given" in an attempt to make yourself look wiser, and the better man, instead of addressing the fact that the operator's agent, and secondary agent, of that property, explicitly welcomed the carrying of firearms in that particular location, which they run, and manage.

But, that doesn't matter, because what you say is automatically right, and nothing anyone else says in defense of their actions, to your charges of disrespecting the rights of others, even matters.

How about you try to at-least practice what you preach, and learn to respect someone else, before you whine and cry about disrespect and personal irresponsibility. Or is that beneath you?

You have learned much about eye .... and are wiser for it ...

Eye has not yet realized with carry is also a civil right.
 

Resto Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
223
Location
right here
But do not own, and therefore cannot set policy or rules contrary to those made by the company. Since by your account they did just that, they are disrespecting the company's stated wishes as much as you did.

In case you missed the point, since you knew the policy explicitly stated (yes, explicit, not implicit, look it up) was that firearms were not welcome you don't need a gunbuster or any other signage. You, by your own admission ignored the policy and were purportedly told by an *assistant* manager that it was OK, and on his word that it was OK with the *manager*. None of those individuals are able to override company policy set by their superiors. Were they managers at my company and I found out that they blatantly disregarded my expressly stated policy and did so publicly in front of a customer, they would be fired on the spot.So, to put a fine point on it, you disregarded the rights of the company. To answer your question "Is that trampling on the rights of Starbucks? " why yes, yes it is. If you still can't see it after the explanation I provided, then I don't know how to better explain it.

(Gah! I can't believe I'm defending the rights of an anti-gun company over their pro-gun management. Distasteful on the one hand, necessary on the other.)


This site is rife with instances where management has over ridden company policy when it comes to customers with weapons and evicted carriers. Even though a company may not have a policy banning carry by customers, all it takes to be charged with trespassing is refusal to leave when ordered so (right or wrong) by management, an "agent of the company". And LEO will merrily go along with it in many cases.
I don't see where the management DrakeZ07 encountered is any worse in regards to "company policy".
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
You have learned much about eye .... and are wiser for it ...

Eye has not yet realized with carry is also a civil right.

And now I feel dirtier now that you have responded favorably to my post.

I need a long, hot shower to sit and scratch at my skin, while muttering 'I'm a dirty boy! I'm a dirty boy! I deserved it all!'.
 

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
728
Location
NE Ohio
This site is rife with instances where management has over ridden company policy when it comes to customers with weapons and evicted carriers. Even though a company may not have a policy banning carry by customers, all it takes to be charged with trespassing is refusal to leave when ordered so (right or wrong) by management, an "agent of the company". And LEO will merrily go along with it in many cases.
I don't see where the management DrakeZ07 encountered is any worse in regards to "company policy".

And when pointed out to corporate, the managers undoubtedly are disciplined and the situation rectified. In most, if not all, of those situations I suspect that management is unaware of corporate policy and violated it unknowingly. In such cases, it is appropriate to make the manager aware of the policy that he has violated, require an explanation, discipline them and place a written warning in their records. In this instance, the managers were well aware of and intentionally flouted the policy in front of a customer. In my view, unacceptable, and deserving of termination.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Read the letter again. No implication. Straight-out asked--as is their RIGHT.

Respect their rights or you have no claim to be a supporter of Liberty. You are simply a supporter of what YOU want to do.

Moving on.

Exactly what I was going to say. If you only pursue increased "liberty" for your self, without pursuing an equal liberty for all, then what you're really doing is pursuing a higher place in the hierarchy, and pursuing privilege, not liberty. Seeing as the right to self defense and to bear arms ultimately are founded upon property rights, it'd be pretty ignorant to try and neglect the property rights of others, and doing so would certainly break one's commitment to liberty.

I really like how you respected my right to an opinion in compliance with the stated private property rules of this forum ...

Wow. Drama queen much? No one is "disrespecting your right" to your opinion, they're disagreeing with you. I don't think you quite know how these "right" things work. The only thing eye95, or any of "us members" can do on this forum, is post. We can type words, and post them to the board. Outside of threats of violence or other unlawful manipulation, there is nothing we can possibly do to actually infringe on your "rights" (here, you actually only have a privilege to post, granted you by the forum owner, you have no right, per se, to post). eye95 has just as much "right" to his opinion as you do yours, and per the allowance of the owner of the forum he can post it, and doing so doesn't effect your ability to post your opposing opinion one bit.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
His post merely reinforced his belief that what he wants to do is somehow more important and more deserving of protection than what anyone else wants to do.

Many folks think that a desire for Liberty is rooted in selfishness. Actually, it is quite altruistic. It ain't Liberty unless everyone has it!

BTW, the lecture series from Hillsdale that I signed up for makes exactly the same point, that the root of all other rights is the right to property.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
Wow. Drama queen much? No one is "disrespecting your right" to your opinion, they're disagreeing with you. I don't think you quite know how these "right" things work. The only thing eye95, or any of "us members" can do on this forum, is post. We can type words, and post them to the board. Outside of threats of violence or other unlawful manipulation, there is nothing we can possibly do to actually infringe on your "rights" (here, you actually only have a privilege to post, granted you by the forum owner, you have no right, per se, to post). eye95 has just as much "right" to his opinion as you do yours, and per the allowance of the owner of the forum he can post it, and doing so doesn't effect your ability to post your opposing opinion one bit.

No sh-t, really? I had no friggen clue whatsoever, and prior post absolutely never alluded to the privilege of posting on this private forum.

You may be able to read, but at least pretend you spend more than a split second's time with each sentence, try reading fully, and trying to understand what is written, before you show you're baser desires to forgo reading comprehension.
 
Top