Time to re-think those coffee meets...Starbucks apparently caves...

[golddigger14s]

Another option:
http://www.alula.com/faqs.html

 

[marshaul]

I agree that we pissed them off by doing what they asked us not to do. If we just carried there normally without purposely using their brand to promote our cause, we'd still be welcome.

Even though they are not going to "enforce it," I must now stop going there, and I am irritated at all who turned them against us.

Note, it was not the carrying in their store that turned them against us. It was the purposely using their stores as political arenas that did it.

If all you did was carry there during the course of your daily grind (ha ha), like me, I am not irritated at you. But if you purposely used Starbucks as a political arena, hopefully you'll understand what the difference is.

If I had a store like that, I'd be very pro-carry and very leave-me-out-of-it, too.

+1

 

[marshaul]

nothing on the Onion, nothing on Starbucks site,

However ABC just picked up the story.....

me thinks pics like this did NOT help our cause.......

I dare say not. :banghead:

 

[marshaul]

As for your meeting place, ask the manager at the local Starbucks that you guys regularly met at if you guys could keep meeting there and if so, under what terms. You might be surprised. The manager just might say yes. You'll never know.

I was gonna say...

Starbucks has carefully not made it policy that guns are actually prohibited. So, if your local Starbucks doesn't feel put in the spotlight, and the manager welcomes you in spite of this non-policy, then there's really no issue visiting as normal.

 

[MAC702]

I was gonna say...

Starbucks has carefully not made it policy that guns are actually prohibited. So, if your local Starbucks doesn't feel put in the spotlight, and the manager welcomes you in spite of this non-policy, then there's really no issue visiting as normal.

Corporate receives benefits from the success of its licensees. The licensee is still the image of Corporate and patronizing them sends the message that being unwelcome is not a factor in where we spend our money.

 

[marshaul]

Corporate receives benefits from the success of its licensees. The licensee is still the image of Corporate and patronizing them sends the message that being unwelcome is not a factor in where we spend our money.

That's true.

But, I never shop at Starbucks anyway. And, some gun owners still patronize anti-gun businesses.

Also, there's unwelcome, and then there's "unwelcome". One could make a compelling argument that a person is not actually, meaningfully "unwelcome" so long as official policy is to continue to take that person's money.

All Starbucks has actually, meaningfully and definitely said, is that their preference is now that we don't bring our guns. I might point out they didn't comment on their preference between the choice of us coming armed, or not coming at all.

I have a hard time taking such corporate doublespeak seriously. The minute Starbucks starts threatening to bring the law down on OCers, I'll change my tune. But for now, I see this as a complete and total non-issue. Especially if your local manager welcomes you and your dollars. (That's all I really expect; I don't need official endorsement from Corporate on High.)

ETA: I just re-read the internal memo to "partners". They are instructed to, and I quote, "Welcome and serve all customers as usual."

http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netd...ploads/2013/09/courtesy-gunssavelife.com_.jpg

So, it's getting increasingly difficult for me to even say that this letter renders us meaningfully "unwelcome". It seems to me that this is pretty tacitly allowing those of us with a little discretion (i.e. no ARs, and who normally carry without incident) the same discretion to go into Starbucks if they still want.

 

[bebop4one]

This was my response to them via Facebook. I'm not welcome? That's fine, but then that goes for my money too.

 

[Stretch]

So, it's getting increasingly difficult for me to even say that this letter renders us meaningfully "unwelcome". It seems to me that this is pretty tacitly allowing those of us with a little discretion (i.e. no ARs, and who normally carry without incident) the same discretion to go into Starbucks if they still want.

It is clear to me that they have asked customers to "...not bring weapons into our stores." The opening salvo of their letter to the stores is very much pointed at the public, and was written as a MEDIA RELEASE for our attention. The remainder of the letter is more pointed towards the employees and how to deal with (or not) those who cannot pull their heads from their arses and respect private property rights.

This letter clearly states NO WEAPONS. Honor their request, keep you, your money and your weapons out and go elsewhere.

 

[papa bear]

first i have to say i have only been in a Starbucks store a couple of times, i think the closest one is 45 miles away, and the next is 30 miles from that. i prefer to make my coffee at home anyways, because i do a hell of a lot better job. second choice, would be a truck stop, their weak but not that bad.


but this blaming people that went to the stores, and thanked the ones who run it, for SB making the decision that they did, is just totally ridiculous. it is probably these folks kept the corporate at bay longer then possible. they kept it normalized. do you really think that corp. didn't notice? they would have fell to the antis years ago if it hadn't been for those people carrying there

the issue lies with the Eleurophobes, like the cult, MOMS against common sense.m there was no reason for them to worry. they just wanted to. they kept up the pressure until the weak a$$ corp. pulled an obama/soetorro, and fooled them in to thinking they had won. so if you do go there and you don't carry. then they have

 

[marshaul]

It is clear to me that they have asked customers to "...not bring weapons into our stores." The opening salvo of their letter to the stores is very much pointed at the public, and was written as a MEDIA RELEASE for our attention. The remainder of the letter is more pointed towards the employees and how to deal with (or not) those who cannot pull their heads from their arses and respect private property rights.

This letter clearly states NO WEAPONS. Honor their request, keep you, your money and your weapons out and go elsewhere.

You're attempting to lecture the wrong person. I've been defending Starbucks on property rights grounds since day one.

However, property rights do not come into play, as they aren't telling people to leave. If I "ask" you to wear a blue sweater when you come to my tea party, but you wear a red one, and I "welcome and serve" you regardless, how can you say my property rights have been violated (or even brought into play)?

I had a preference, you allowed yours to override, and I wasn't bothered enough actually say anything about it. How does this even merit discussion?

 

[marshaul]

but this blaming people that went to the stores, and thanked the ones who run it, for SB making the decision that they did, is just totally ridiculous. it is probably these folks kept the corporate at bay longer then possible. they kept it normalized. do you really think that corp. didn't notice? they would have fell to the antis years ago if it hadn't been for those people carrying there

Go back and look at the picture I quoted on page 3, and tell me again that no gun guys did anything to precipitate this.

 

[Stretch]

You're attempting to lecture the wrong person. I've been defending Starbucks on property rights grounds since day one.

However, property rights do not come into play, as they aren't telling people to leave. If I "ask" you to wear a blue sweater when you come to my tea party, but you wear a red one, and I "welcome and serve" you regardless, how can you say my property rights have been violated (or even brought into play)?

I had a preference, you allowed yours to override, and I wasn't bothered enough actually say anything about it. How does this even merit discussion?

They're not telling people to leave, yet. Someone will, whether or not it is with the SB corporate blessing or not, some employee will do it because they chose to read more into the letter than is currently written. SB has made the request, I'll abide by it.

I don't think we disagree.

 

[BobR]

Something else to consider: This announcement was made a day after the Naval Yard Shooting. I'm guessing with the political pressure from the anti's, they've finally caved in because of this shooting. I've had a feeling that they would eventually cave in if something like that occurred. No matter, ain't like I bought Starbucks to begin with.

The letter was written and released on Constitution Day. Does anyone think they even knew that?

bob

 

[Alpine]

They're not telling people to leave, yet. Someone will, whether or not it is with the SB corporate blessing or not, some employee will do it because they chose to read more into the letter than is currently written. SB has made the request, I'll abide by it.

I don't think we disagree.

Given that the supposed goal is to take the attention off of SB and quiet down the gun debate in terms of SB's presence in it, the moment an employee does that, as I'm sure some will, if someone gets their name and complains to SB they won't be an employee for long when corporate finds out and it becomes publicized that baristas are going rogue and ignoring the company policy.

 

[golddigger14s]

Their response to my rant. The more I think about it I don't blame them. We used them as a a battleground, for a battle they were not wanting to be involved in. I never really liked their coffee any way:
Hi CHARLES,



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,



Carmelita M

customer service

 

[Ajetpilot]

Call or email them, they will confirm it for you. I could tell you I've done it but you'd likely question that as well, right?
It's not like you know me.

Hey CurmudgeonlyGal, is that you:question:

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Sooo,,, amid all the hoopla and calls for a boycot...

I gathered myself up, loaded myself up with all my normal "going to town stuff" and went to Starbucks!

Went in, Open carrying my usual Star Modelo Super!
I got greeted with Welcomes, Smiles and How can We serve Yous...
Got myself a salted carmel latty.
Payed with 2 dollar bills,,, 50% tip!
It was delicious!
Their was no comment on my carry, and no real response to my queries about the news from shults,
sooo,,, I will carry on in my normal day to day activities, including special coffees!

 

[Mavasaur]

If people would quit running into every business that's "okay with open carry" and turning it into a local gun show like the picture above, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Yes, it's our right to carry, but honestly, carrying around your carbine is just asking for it. I'll open carry my pistols daily, but that's it. There is no reason to cause alarm to citizens by lugging around your AR-15 simply because you can, carry a pistol you're proficient with and quit being "That guy"

As for this whole Starbucks stuff, doesn't bother me one bit, I've maybe spent $100 there in the past 10 years. Will I continue going there? No.

 

[Logan 5]

Please tell me that you did not just refer to a semi-automatic rifle made and intended for use in the civilian market as an "assault rifle". Please tell me you didn't just do that.

Eyeeeeee DID!

So what? We can call them whatever the hell we want. What if they started banning homosexuality because they don't like the name "gay" and the image it portrays? It's just a name. I am a firm believer that if you want an assault rifle, you can have one (provided you have the money to buy one). One of my favorite rifles was an asault rifle, made in 1908. Winny '94 rifle (not carbine). Sweet lever action-tube fed assault rifle, action was so smooth...I loved it!

 

[amlevin]

This is a perfect example of how extremism works in this country. One side goes to one extreme, in this case making a big deal out of openly carrying weapons into a business rather than just going in, buying coffee, enjoying, and leaving.

This brings an equal and opposite extreme, those who don't want to see any guns around them who then put pressure on a business to ban them from their premises.

The business in question finds themselves caught in the middle of a battle they had no interest in to begin with and now has come up with a "Policy" that is meant to appease, as much as possible, both extremes.

Ask yourself the question, would this have occurred if those who open carry their firearms had just gone about their coffee purchases, in store friendly meetings, and not go out of their way to call attention to the fact they're carrying a firearm?

Maybe we need a little less "Hey, look at me, I'm carrying a gun and exercising my rights". Just go about your daily routine with less advertising.