davidmcbeth
Banned
Comment or vote on poll ...
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.)
You have learned much about eye .... and are wiser for it ...
Eye has not yet realized with carry is also a civil right.
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".
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 ...
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.