Is it time to fine a new coffee place? Starbucks caves...

[JamesCanby]

You must beyond the moment -- is our right to KBA a civil right? I think so ... so that businesses cannot exclude one that would violate the civil right of another.


This is the next level .... beyond tomorrow ... but arguments must be made now to get this out and for people to discuss.

Plus they are a business and they invite the public to their establishment ~ they don't want all people, close the business down.

There you go again with your mantra that when a business opens its doors to the public that they have lost all ability to decide who may enter or remain on the premises... which is decidedly not the case.

 

[marshaul]

Starbucks does not support our 2A right. Thus I will not patronize a Starbucks. Being neutral does not support liberty.

This is of course your right, but I submit that most folks in this community don't expect anything more than, and will be satisfied with, neutrality.

You can't expect most business to actively and overtly support us. Most business are corporations with committees making every decision based solely on the bottom line.

Starbucks' position is the best for business.

 

[JamesCanby]

This is of course your right, but I submit that most folks in this community don't expect anything more than, and will be satisfied with, neutrality.

You can't expect most business to actively and overtly support us. Most business are corporations with committees making every decision based solely on the bottom line.

Starbucks' position is the best for business.

^This.

It is faulty thinking to generalize from a specific. ONE Starbucks location, one that was in a unique situation, closed rather than become the focal point for a confrontation. To use that as a reason not to patronize ANY Starbucks location surely defeats the successful efforts to enhance OC's reputation.

If I was a business owner in the consumer-product field, I would want to welcome people of all opinions into my store* to buy my products, and that is exactly what Starbucks does in following state law. If however, my store became the focal point of a confrontation between two groups of customers, I might make the same decision, that is, to close during the announced date/time of the event...


*while still retaining the right to grant or deny entry to any specific individual

 

[OC for ME]

This is of course your right, but I submit that most folks in this community don't expect anything more than, and will be satisfied with, neutrality.

You can't expect most business to actively and overtly support us. Most business are corporations with committees making every decision based solely on the bottom line.

Starbucks' position is the best for business.

You are correct. My issue with Starbucks goes beyond the mere ability to carry at a Starbucks, but to the views and habits of the CEO/Founder who has supported, and likely continues to support, politicians who seek to eradicate our 2A right. Because Starbucks must support same-sex marriage (SSM) candidates who are notoriously anti-gun to get SSM passed into law and thus Starbucks officially supports SSM. I have no issue with this. But, SSM, is not in the US Constitution, and rates extra efforts to enact, and the 2A (which is in the US Constitution) rates "neutral" at best. Their business their business, even if being a hypocrite is good for business.

Besides, being able to carry at a Starbucks does not make their coffee not taste burnt to me. crappy coffee is crappy coffee whether or not I am armed.

 

[davidmcbeth]

There you go again with your mantra that when a business opens its doors to the public that they have lost all ability to decide who may enter or remain on the premises... which is decidedly not the case.

Well, I think you would agree that a business could not disallow jews, blacks, catholics, etc from entering the business.

Think along those lines.

We are trying to expand our rights ... I know the arguments against such "crazy and dangerous" thinking ~ that's what the antis want everyone to think -- that its a safety issue. You can either agree or disagree but just know that agreeing supports the antis' viewpoint even if for another reason.

 

[OC for ME]

No, the anti's, who are almost exclusively liberal, hate property rights too, except for themselves. Folks understand property rights and thus liberals are shooting for a far easier right to eradicate, the 2A, also, except for themselves.

 

[DocWalker]

Companies can do what they wish...with that being said.

1. Some would say closing so a certain class of people (in this case ocers) are being discriminated against just like places in the 1960's that said "whites only".

2. Newtown was a terriable thing that happened but.... It wasn't about guns it was about a crazy person. By Starbucks closing so people that believe in the US Constitution they are saying that the Newtown shooting is only about guns and gun control.

Supporting Starbucks closing to keep out ocer's is agreeing to gun control as it is obvious that they closed purley out of emotion and not for a good reason.

3. After 911 we rebuilt the towers and made a memorial but we didn't close airports as it was planes used to kill so many people.....why not isn't flying insensitive to those that lost their lives on 911?

 

[davidmcbeth]

No, the anti's, who are almost exclusively liberal, hate property rights too, except for themselves. Folks understand property rights and thus liberals are shooting for a far easier right to eradicate, the 2A, also, except for themselves.

Ah, hoist them on their own Picard ! (Star Trek joke)

 

[JamesCanby]

Well, I think you would agree that a business could not disallow jews, blacks, catholics, etc from entering the business.

Think along those lines.

We are trying to expand our rights ... I know the arguments against such "crazy and dangerous" thinking ~ that's what the antis want everyone to think -- that its a safety issue. You can either agree or disagree but just know that agreeing supports the antis' viewpoint even if for another reason.

Of course I would agree with the bolded statement, and I have mentioned in several posts that a business owner may not discriminate by refusing entry to any member of any of the protected classes when that decision is based solely on them being a member of a protected class. Having said that, if someone I *knew* to be a member of a protected class who attempted to enter my business while violating some other prohibition against entry, I could and would deny them access.

We cannot "expand" our rights -- they are unalienable and shall not be infringed. What is at issue here is the conflict between competing rights, that of your right to self defense by keeping and bearing arms, and the right of a business to determine its access policies -- property rights. Your right simply cannot force a business owner to allow you to enter or remain if it is his/her policy to prohibit the carrying of a firearm by its clientele.

As I've asked several times now, with no response: provide case law or enacted law that stipulates that a business owner must open the doors to everyone in the public, or that they may not set 'reasonable' standards for access.

Want a real windmill to tilt at? If the 2nd Amendment stipulates one's unalienable right to self defense by keeping and bearing arms, work to force the issue through the courts to allow loaded firearm carry on commercial airplanes. After all, the Bill of Rights was written to limit the Government's ability to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of our lives ... not to tell business owners how to run their business.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Of course I would agree with the bolded statement, and I have mentioned in several posts that a business owner may not discriminate by refusing entry to any member of any of the protected classes when that decision is based solely on them being a member of a protected class. Having said that, if someone I *knew* to be a member of a protected class who attempted to enter my business while violating some other prohibition against entry, I could and would deny them access.

We cannot "expand" our rights -- they are unalienable and shall not be infringed. What is at issue here is the conflict between competing rights, that of your right to self defense by keeping and bearing arms, and the right of a business to determine its access policies -- property rights. Your right simply cannot force a business owner to allow you to enter or remain if it is his/her policy to prohibit the carrying of a firearm by its clientele.

As I've asked several times now, with no response: provide case law or enacted law that stipulates that a business owner must open the doors to everyone in the public, or that they may not set 'reasonable' standards for access.

Want a real windmill to tilt at? If the 2nd Amendment stipulates one's unalienable right to self defense by keeping and bearing arms, work to force the issue through the courts to allow loaded firearm carry on commercial airplanes. After all, the Bill of Rights was written to limit the Government's ability to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of our lives ... not to tell business owners how to run their business.

Well, I think that you agree that a business cannot discriminate ... so a cite is not needed.

Well, yes, I guess I am telling businesses who are upon to the public not to discriminate against gun owners - its out civil right to carry.

I think you agree with this .. but yet cannot tie the two concepts together.

 

[JamesCanby]

Well, I think that you agree that a business cannot discriminate ... so a cite is not needed.

Well, yes, I guess I am telling businesses who are upon to the public not to discriminate against gun owners - its out civil right to carry.

I think you agree with this .. but yet cannot tie the two concepts together.

Either I am communicating poorly, or your reading comprehension skills are near zero.

How many different ways can I say it: Your right to carry a firearm does NOT extend onto private property where the owner prohibits it.

And yes, I'm still waiting for you to provide a cite to a statute that prohibits a business from denying entry to anyone carrying a firearm.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Either I am communicating poorly, or your reading comprehension skills are near zero.

How many different ways can I say it: Your right to carry a firearm does NOT extend onto private property where the owner prohibits it.

And yes, I'm still waiting for you to provide a cite to a statute that prohibits a business from denying entry to anyone carrying a firearm.

Ah, I believe it does. Lots of cites for civil rights stuff...you already agree so I don't see the need.

Can u discuss w/o name calling? This is not personal in nature.


If it is a civil right then they cannot refuse you ...

You have not answered this: is carrying a civil right?

 

[JamesCanby]

Ah, I believe it does. Lots of cites for civil rights stuff...you already agree so I don't see the need.

Can u discuss w/o name calling? This is not personal in nature.


If it is a civil right then they cannot refuse you ...

You have not answered this: is carrying a civil right?

So you admit that it is just your opinion and that there is no statute that you can cite to back up your claim. What you "believe" does not matter, your belief does not carry the force of law.

I do NOT agree with you that your right to carry trumps property access rights. Please read that line three times, preferably out loud.

Civil rights law is based on protected classes based on human attributes: Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age, Sex, Pregnancy, Citizenship, Familial Status, and Disability, NOT on what a human does, such as carrying a firearm, so ... No ... firearm carry is not a federally-recognized civil right under the law.

Is it a right guaranteed under the Constitution, a right that shall not be infringed? Yes, and property owners have rights as well that must be balanced against the rights of others. It's trite, and I have avoided saying it, but "Your right to swing your arm stops where my nose begins." Your right to carry stops at my door, if I so choose to limit access in that way.

We will never "expand" our rights by forcing acceptance down people's throats. If we work to show the community that we are normal people who choose to carry a means of self-defense in an increasingly dangerous world, and that we are not a threat to other law-abiding citizens, we will achieve our goal.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well, there you go ... its a matter of if it is a civil right or not.

You say no, I say yes.

Read this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-rights/


What is considered a "civil right" has been very flexible in our nation's history.

You have a right to defend yourself, yes? Why should that end at a business who invites you in?

We should press for more clarity on this ~ I believe that pro-gun rights will win the day in this examination.

You need to focus on the civil rights aspect first, then property rights.

So are you happy with all the limits of carry?

 

[JamesCanby]

Well, there you go ... its a matter of if it is a civil right or not.

You say no, I say yes.

Read this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-rights/


What is considered a "civil right" has been very flexible in our nation's history.

You have a right to defend yourself, yes? Why should that end at a business who invites you in?

We should press for more clarity on this ~ I believe that pro-gun rights will win the day in this examination.

You need to focus on the civil rights aspect first, then property rights.

So are you happy with all the limits of carry?

So you still can't legally defend your statement that carry rights trump property rights. No cite, just a belief. Ok. I'm done with that.

I carry everywhere I am legally allowed to carry, and I respect the rights of others.

Moving on.

 

[davidmcbeth]

So you still can't legally defend your statement that carry rights trump property rights. No cite, just a belief. Ok. I'm done with that.

I carry everywhere I am legally allowed to carry, and I respect the rights of others.

Moving on.

Civil rights can trump property rights. You already agreed ...

They are not respecting your rights IMO.

 

[anmut]

Of course I would agree with the bolded statement, and I have mentioned in several posts that a business owner may not discriminate by refusing entry to any member of any of the protected classes when that decision is based solely on them being a member of a protected class. Having said that, if someone I *knew* to be a member of a protected class who attempted to enter my business while violating some other prohibition against entry, I could and would deny them access.

We cannot "expand" our rights -- they are unalienable and shall not be infringed. What is at issue here is the conflict between competing rights, that of your right to self defense by keeping and bearing arms, and the right of a business to determine its access policies -- property rights. Your right simply cannot force a business owner to allow you to enter or remain if it is his/her policy to prohibit the carrying of a firearm by its clientele.

As I've asked several times now, with no response: provide case law or enacted law that stipulates that a business owner must open the doors to everyone in the public, or that they may not set 'reasonable' standards for access.

Want a real windmill to tilt at? If the 2nd Amendment stipulates one's unalienable right to self defense by keeping and bearing arms, work to force the issue through the courts to allow loaded firearm carry on commercial airplanes. After all, the Bill of Rights was written to limit the Government's ability to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of our lives ... not to tell business owners how to run their business.

Three years ago I could not give you case law that allowed me to conceal my firearm in WI. We did not stop fighting though. Today we continue to fight.

My original post is not to have government step in and force businesses to allow carry - THAT VERY OLD LAW ALREADY EXISTS. No; my original post was to let everyone know that Starbucks showed their true colors.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Three years ago I could not give you case law that allowed me to conceal my firearm in WI. We did not stop fighting though. Today we continue to fight.

My original post is not to have government step in and force businesses to allow carry - THAT VERY OLD LAW ALREADY EXISTS. No; my original post was to let everyone know that Starbucks showed their true colors.

100+ Starbucks did show their true colors; clearly they took a position based on their business concerns but when it go too rough, exposed themselves.

Laws change, they are man made ... we should work to change them, get court rulings that support our position...

 

[JustaShooter]

This guy gets it, unfortunately, many of you don't.

http://www.thebangswitch.com/slapping-an-ally-in-the-face/

Pete's Coffee ring a bell with anyone? If Starbux starts posting stores, you have nobody but yourselves to blame.

 

[davidmcbeth]

This guy gets it, unfortunately, many of you don't.

http://www.thebangswitch.com/slapping-an-ally-in-the-face/

Pete's Coffee ring a bell with anyone? If Starbux starts posting stores, you have nobody but yourselves to blame.

partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

What? We can coffee anywhere; believe it or not, we can make it ourselves >GASP!<

Clearly they think that if they ask gun folks to leave, puts them in an unsafe position ... i.e. gun carriers are unsafe


Starbucks is a person in the eyes of the law ... they want to eat their cake too ...

Its not US who will suffer profits being lost, its Starbucks.

I think we "get it" just fine ... starbucks needs to pick a side at this point ..with Americans or against