Starbucks Gun Rights Issues

[eNomineZerum]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/starbucks-in-a-reversal-to-bar-guns-from-stores.html?_r=0

Starbucks is facing a hard decision with all of these Pro 2A rallies at their stores. They have REQUESTED that people leave their weapons at home; however, they are not changing their policy and banning guns from their stores.

There is a lot of hate being sent towards Starbucks even though they are simply trying to do what all businesses do, turn a profit. I have carried both OC and CC in Starbucks with no issue and feel that as long we don't use their stores as a base of operation we should be fine. When you bring a fight to someone and they react in a manner that you don't agree with can you really be angry at them? Starbucks never wanted this fight and now are having to walk a thin center line to please both sides of a polarizing argument. I for one will continue to patronize Starbucks when I am in the mood and as with the Chik Fil A scandal will not change my shopping preferences.

 

[eye95]

ABP. At least three times.

 

[jbone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/starbucks-in-a-reversal-to-bar-guns-from-stores.html?_r=0

...They have REQUESTED that people leave their weapons at home; however, they are not changing their policy and banning guns from their stores.

Policy of banning will come next.


"The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers" ~Schultz~

What a lib!

 

[Dave Workman]

Policy of banning will come next.


"The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers" ~Schultz~

What a lib!

No, what an observer. Starbucks, as I note in my examiner column, never wanted to be a political football. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee. There's been some boorish grandstanding amid a lot of low-key, NOT-in-your-face carry by responsible folks. To claim otherwise is to be self-delusional. Likewise, the anti-gunners have been boorish and in-your-face as well. Whiny twits complaining about some guy minding his own business being a symbol of "gun violence" are their own worst enemies.

Starbucks letter ignites tempest in a coffee pot

Overnight, Howard Schultz, CEO of the Seattle-based Starbucks – which has become the unwilling focal point of a political struggle over gun rights – released an open letter asking people to not carry firearms in Starbucks coffee shops.

http://www.examiner.com/article/starbucks-appeal-ignites-tempest-a-coffee-pot

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The presence of anti-gun protests against Starbucks near their stores is unsettling and upsetting for me. Why didn't Starbucks ask them to stop their protests? I guess I am not a customer of equal worth to Starbucks.

I never knew Starbucks had the right to forcibly remove people near their stores, can you cite that please?

 

[jbone]

No, what an observer. Starbucks, as I note in my examiner column, never wanted to be a political football. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee. There's been some boorish grandstanding amid a lot of low-key, NOT-in-your-face carry by responsible folks. To claim otherwise is to be self-delusional. Likewise, the anti-gunners have been boorish and in-your-face as well. Whiny twits complaining about some guy minding his own business being a symbol of "gun violence" are their own worst enemies.

Starbucks letter ignites tempest in a coffee pot

Overnight, Howard Schultz, CEO of the Seattle-based Starbucks – which has become the unwilling focal point of a political struggle over gun rights – released an open letter asking people to not carry firearms in Starbucks coffee shops.

http://www.examiner.com/article/starbucks-appeal-ignites-tempest-a-coffee-pot

It would appear there has been a shift since your examiner column, a political shift for Starbucks. Asking others to not exercise the rights to accommodate others is the anti-gun movement. Starbucks in stroke the of a pen has asked others not to freely to exercise the laws enacted by the state. And worse is their not willing to respect the laws any longer. I recall they used "respect" in the memo, respect for others, just not the responsible gun owners. The whole new stance laid out in the memo is hypocritical of Starbucks, and smells of political meddling.
There is without doubt, Starbuck has succumbed to the anti-gun establishment.

 

[jbone]

The presence of anti-gun protests against Starbucks near their stores is unsettling and upsetting for me. Why didn't Starbucks ask them to stop their protests? I guess I am not a customer of equal worth to Starbucks.

Thats how liberals role!

 

[Dave Workman]

It would appear there has been a shift since your examiner column, a political shift for Starbucks. Asking others to not exercise the rights to accommodate others is the anti-gun movement. Starbucks in stroke the of a pen has asked others not to freely to exercise the laws enacted by the state. And worse is their not willing to respect the laws any longer. I recall they used "respect" in the memo, respect for others, just not the responsible gun owners. The whole new stance laid out in the memo is hypocritical of Starbucks, and smells of political meddling.
There is without doubt, Starbuck has succumbed to the anti-gun establishment.

Well, you might give this a read before pointing a lot of fingers...


http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

 

[eye95]

Well, you might give this a read before pointing a lot of fingers...


http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

Did you actually quote someone who uses the phrase "open carry foolishness" to try to support your point on the premier open carry message forum? Now THAT is foolishness.

Many lost respect points.

I must say you are finally being interactive, rather than being a drive-by poster. Some of those respect points regained. Not many though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Did you actually quote someone who uses the phrase "open carry foolishness" to try to support your point on the premier open carry message forum? Now THAT is foolishness.

Many lost respect points.

I must say you are finally being interactive, rather than being a drive-by poster. Some of those respect points regained. Not many though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

Dude, get the off of WAs forum and come back when you learn who you're talking to and how to show proper respect....

Maybe when you meet Workman in person like many of us on the WA forums have myself included you'll know what the hell you're talking about

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well, you might give this a read before pointing a lot of fingers...


http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

The decision is in, and it is not in our favor.


Well, actually I see this decision as being in our favor. Rather have an anti outed right?

 

[Logan 5]

This is a C&P of a response I received from Starbucks. Underlined where I feel is appropriate.

Hello C.,

Thank you for contacting Starbucks.

Thank you for your email regarding Starbucks' policy on open carry laws.

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate by activist groups from different sides seeking to draw attention to their respective points of view. We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion on this topic but do not believe our stores are the appropriate staging ground for this debate.

Effective Wednesday September 18, 2013, we are respectfully requesting that customers not bring weapons into our stores. This is a request and not a ban. You can read more about our request on our website or by clicking here. We are continuing to encourage groups from all sides of this debate to share their views in a more appropriate place, with the elected leaders and policymakers who make America’s gun laws.


Thanks again for writing us. If you ever have any questions or concerns in the future, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Sincerely,

Egypt B
customer service

I can provide a screen shot of the (redacted) e-mail to confirm, if needed.

 

[eye95]

Dude, get the off of WAs forum...

Yo, genius, this is in News & Political Alerts.

You usually do demonstrate "cop mentality" on the boards. But you did here. I suggest that you don't. Especially when you don't even know where on the boards you are!

 

[We-the-People]

As far as I'm concerned, I will continue to "carry on", openly, at Starbucks until such time as they post and trespass me. Their letter is written to try to appease the anti's by letting it be known we're not welcome AND the NRA types by only "respectfully requesting" we don't carry but not outright saying they're anti.

Their policy of respecting 2A rights and respecting the law of the locale was acceptable, appropriate, and the right thing to do. The brady bunch however wasn't happy.

The new policy is neither respectful or honest.

I have to admit, I had to think on this one for a bit.....abide by their request as they've obviously chosen the vocal minority or continue to carry into their establishments in a sort of protest to their fence straddling even though it gives financial support to the company. Carrying won the argument.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yo, genius, this is in News & Political Alerts.

You usually do demonstrate "cop mentality" on the boards. But you did here. I suggest that you don't. Especially when you don't even know where on the boards you are!

Fine you're right about that, but I blame that I can't keep track of the thirty Starbucks threads

 

[georg jetson]

Fine you're right about that, but I blame that I can't keep track of the thirty Starbucks threads

You can blame yourself for not minding your own business. There's no rule at OCDO about who can and can't post in state specific forums.

 

[eye95]

Fine you're right about that, but I blame that I can't keep track of the thirty Starbucks threads

Not keeping track is why you might think I was posting in WA. It is not a valid excuse for your rudeness.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Not keeping track is why you might think I was posting in WA. It is not a valid excuse for your rudeness.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Rudeness.... Do not lecture me on rudeness sir... You are an ass to everyone at some point or another. Your uncalled for personal attacks on Dave Workman being the most recent example

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yo, genius, this is in News & Political Alerts.

You usually do demonstrate "cop mentality" on the boards. But you did here. I suggest that you don't. Especially when you don't even know where on the boards you are!

Personal irritant of mine, those who have the "locals only" mentality. We don't often agree Eye, but I would welcome your input and discussion in my state forum.

Hell, Workman and I don't agree on much, and we have great discussions. People don't have to see eye to eye to have respect.

 

[eye95]

Rudeness.... Do not lecture me on rudeness sir... You are an ass to everyone at some point or another. Your uncalled for personal attacks on Dave Workman being the most recent example

I criticized him for what he does. You criticized me for something I did not do. There is a huge difference.

Again, your "oops" doesn't work for your rudeness, only your incorrectness. And, since your rudeness was based on your being dead wrong, you'd think you'd back down a bit.

Ya know, I thought most folks were being unnecessarily harsh on you. However, I now see your cop mentality shining through and get it. You are the WA forum cop, and that applies to all other forums, too.

Tell me you don't like what I do (I tell folks that, like when I tell Dave that I don't like his drive-by habit of posting), but telling what and where I can post is just another arrogant behavior I will call you on.

I made my point, pointed out your stupid error, and will simply move on. Keep copping the thread if you wish. Your choice. I'll move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>