Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Starbucks response to my letter

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    I dropped Starbucks a quick note letting them know that I support their stance on the OC issue, although I'm sure it's causing them some strife. I won't post their entire response, but I found this paragraph interesting:

    We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position. (emphasis mine)
    I don't think they are implying that we'd go crazy after being refused $5 coffee and shoot everyone, though I could be wrong. Are they really saying that OC, where legal, makes their stores safer? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought it was worth sharing.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    centsi wrote:
    I dropped Starbucks a quick note letting them know that I support their stance on the OC issue, although I'm sure it's causing them some strife. I won't post their entire response, but I found this paragraph interesting:

    We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position. (emphasis mine)
    I don't think they are implying that we'd go crazy after being refused $5 coffee and shoot everyone, though I could be wrong. Are they really saying that OC, where legal, makes their stores safer? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought it was worth sharing.

    Why don't you write them back and have them clarify it for you, asking if they think thier partners would be a risk by OC'rs if they were resused entry or that they think their partners would be more likely to be robbed because OC'ing patrons are not there.

    I am one of those that if I do not understand something clearly, I will ask and keep asking, in different ways,until I get a clear answer one way or the other.



    ”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    I don't think you have to read it as "OCers are unsafe." I think you could read it as "kicking law abiding people out of our stores is, in general, unsafe."

    In any case, I don't think starbucks is necessary siding with OCers. They are just abiding by state law because they want to remain neutral on the issue (or as close to neutral as possible).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Calhan, Co.
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    centsi wrote:
    I dropped Starbucks a quick note letting them know that I support their stance on the OC issue, although I'm sure it's causing them some strife. I won't post their entire response, but I found this paragraph interesting:
    We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position. (emphasis mine)
    I don't think they are implying that we'd go crazy after being refused $5 coffee and shoot everyone, though I could be wrong. Are they really saying that OC, where legal, makes their stores safer? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought it was worth sharing.
    The way I took that, even in their press release, was that they though that it would be unsafe to ask an armed citizen (no matter how law abiding) to leave. If you request clarification, let us know; I know I sure would like to know.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    ZackL wrote:
    centsi wrote:
    I dropped Starbucks a quick note letting them know that I support their stance on the OC issue, although I'm sure it's causing them some strife. I won't post their entire response, but I found this paragraph interesting:
    We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position. (emphasis mine)
    I don't think they are implying that we'd go crazy after being refused $5 coffee and shoot everyone, though I could be wrong. Are they really saying that OC, where legal, makes their stores safer? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought it was worth sharing.
    The way I took that, even in their press release, was that they though that it would be unsafe to ask an armed citizen (no matter how law abiding) to leave. If you request clarification, let us know; I know I sure would like to know.
    I do not actually think that was what they intended to say, butthat certainly was the way I read it the first time, and I still think that is the impression it gives no matter what their intentions were. I too would like for them to clarify that one, but it is not worth making them mad over, because in the end they are supportingour side of the argument.

    Doc

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    I don't see them supporting "our side" as much as just plain doing business.

    They want to make a profit, if someone is not doing anything illegal, serve them.

    KA - CHING.

    Also keeps them from being pressured by the Brady bunch or us because they just say, we go by the law. None of their associates has to discuss it, just say that's the policy and they are done. No having to ask someone to leave, just what do they want to drink...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Diocoles wrote:
    I don't see them supporting "our side" as much as just plain doing business.

    They want to make a profit, if someone is not doing anything illegal, serve them.

    KA - CHING.

    Also keeps them from being pressured by the Brady bunch or us because they just say, we go by the law. None of their associates has to discuss it, just say that's the policy and they are done. No having to ask someone to leave, just what do they want to drink...
    Yes, I agree, but their decision was in our favor. That is why I don't want to ruffle any feather over minor details.

    Doc

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    What side are we really? I'm just a guy who carries a firearm. Starbucks says they follow the law.

    Cool.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    What side are we really? I'm just a guy who carries a firearm. Starbucks says they follow the law.

    Cool.
    Thats our side!

  10. #10
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Guys we need to leave starbucks out of the middle of this.I was in the original video locally for this thing and have talked to many.Starbucks simply follows state law where ever that is and no more.They do not claim to support one side or the other.Here in Wa. however that is good because OC is legal(no license of any kind required and we have never had an issue in a Starbucks.



    http://www.king5.com/news/business/One-shot-or-two-Group-lobbies-to-ban-guns-from-Starbucks-84142442.html
    I don't want to appear that we are the ones trying to coax them to our side.Just go about you business and thats it.This Starbucks in the news article..the manager saw the camera coming.He came out and told me my side arm is welcome but cameras are not...

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    Guys we need to leave starbucks out of the middle of this.
    agreed.
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    He came out and told me my side arm is welcome but cameras are not...
    Oh, glory, glory, that is the world I want to live in. Live your life, do your own thing, but mind yer own business instead of making a spectacle of others'.

Posting Permissions

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