-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Time to re-think those coffee meets...Starbucks apparently caves...
- Thread starter trevorthebusdriver
- Start date
Funny, gays, pot smokers, and other movements claiming equal rights didn't get slapped down. But glad a group who has the right does and...your on a pro-gun forum, why?
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
I seldom went to *$ and never bought their coffee. So I am really not missing anything but some time spent. I prefer the Hide a Way.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Those other groups weren't the center of a controversy the property owner pointedly asked not to be the center of. Even if they did, it is the prerogative of said property owner to pick and choose whom he allows on his property.
golddigger14s
Activist Member
We "shot our selves in the foot", we (us, and antis) used Switzerland to have our battle. I will respect their request, and take my money elsewhere. I was never crazy about their coffee, I just enjoyed the camaraderie that we shared at the gatherings. I just hope this doesn't hurt our gatherings, maybe city parks instead of commercial businesses? I will no longer carry CC, or OC there out of respect for their request.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Well, a proprietor who does not allow certain ethnic people into his public establishment would have problems, right? So, I think everyone would agree that a proprietor's rights are not absolute. They are statutory rights and can be changed according to the whims of governments.
Remember, the government does not give us rights, they only can oppress them.
So, do you think you have the right to carry? And is this a civil right as well? If you answered yes to both, then bingo, they cannot keep one out who carries.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I don't recall an instance of pot smokers staging "Starbucks Appreciation days" wherein they all showed up and started taking bong hits, after Starbucks explicitly asked to be left out of the marijuana legalization debate. :banghead:
You really need to get over yourself.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
A: I reject the line of reasoning which lead you to this conclusion.
B: They are not "keeping out" carriers in the first place. Nobody has been banned.
C: The issue is not – and has never been – folks simply carrying, as you so disingenuously keep trying to imply. The issue is folks making Facebook pages about "Starbucks appreciation days" where they post selfies of them with their improperly-handled ARs, and doing so after the one request Starbucks made was not to be in the middle of the debate.
:banghead:
Jesus H. Christ. This is not difficult.
Last edited:
godsdaddy
Regular Member
FWIW, that picture was taken in a Starbucks location overseas (Kuwait) by a deployed service member with his issued weapon.
ETA: For the "CITE" crowd.
Last edited:
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Last edited:
Such a long thread over a statement that contains little complications. Have we run out of things to talk about? I side with NavyCmdr on this (and many other things) that SB has cleverly worded it so any and all culpability will lay on the heads of the "inconsiderate" gun owners. Some of you will stop at nothing to blame "us" to excuse your incessant need to access your overprice liquid crack and to hold a cup that has a brand; tribal recognition of the lowest order if you ask me. For the record, I did attend several meets at SB to show my appreciation for their neutrality not because of the coffee per sey. If my mother in law ask me not to show up with blue jeans at her house and as I matter of course I wear blue jeans..guess what I wont set foot in her domicile again. It's that simple folks, it doesn't require a robust 5 page dissertation. STOP SHOPPING THERE!!! If there was ever a time to support the local guy it is now. Fools! The lot of you.
1911er
Regular Member
found A good one
The newly remodeled Starbucks at Fred Meyer in Port Orchard is not A corporate store therefore I was told today I could bring my shiny gun in as long as I brought my smile in with it.
The newly remodeled Starbucks at Fred Meyer in Port Orchard is not A corporate store therefore I was told today I could bring my shiny gun in as long as I brought my smile in with it.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Well, if you desire to use the term erroneously in the same manner that the anti-gun groups do, then go right ahead. Just make sure and keep your assault rifles separate from your AR-15 shotguns so they don't get confused....just curious, do you have any of them 10/22 assault rifles?
Ohhhhh! Nice tricked out pencil! Can I have one?
I used to have an AR15 assault rifle. So what? Who cares what it's called? "Nah, it's really not an AR-15 assault rifle, it's really a 1995 version of the 1940 Packard 120 club coupe". There we go. It's now no longer an assault rifle, but it still looks the same and shoots the same and...you get the idea. Maybe. Or maybe not.
.45ACPaddy
Regular Member
They're playing both sides at this point. They have to.
They ask us not to carry into their stores. They won't enforce a ban, but they still ask "Please don't carry in our establishments."
Plenty enough for me. I will respect their wishes and not carry in their establishments. Since I carry 90% of the time, it's quite likely I won't visit their establishments. At the same time, they're STILL not taking a strong stance and enforcing bans. I really gotta say, they're giving a LOT of second chances. It actually surprises me that they're not actively enforcing a no guns policy, but rather being passive about it.
I do gotta say, though, those who celebrated Starbucks as pro 2a were quite mistaken. Starbucks was neutral the entire time. They gave us gun owners/open carriers/whatever you wanna call us a chance. They simply wanted to go by whatever laws were applicable. But there were those who wanted to take that as a "victory" of Starbucks being pro gun, via proxy that local laws were in favor of open carriers. Sorry, but I think there were some that took the neutral stance and ran with it as if Starbucks WANTED us in there with guns. They didn't. They wanted voters to decide. It takes neither side. They were neutral. Think they were actually pro 2A?
NOPE.
They just wanted to serve coffee to people, make their profit and go home at the end of the day, plain and simple. Guns be damned, politics be damned.
Now that a few have screwed it up, they've gone ahead and made a statement because they were used as a political war ground when they just didn't want to be involved in any of this.
Despite the fact that it was a minority of us open carriers, us open carriers that chose to use Starbucks as a political battleground to make them seem pro 2a screwed things up royally.
We decided to have weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc. meetings at Starbucks. We decided to have Starbucks appreciation days, though there wasn't really anything to appreciate aside from being realistic and taking a neutral stance, as I wish more businesses would. But as we've seen, taking a neutral stance gets taken as being for one side or another.
I gotta say, they really did give more than a fair shot at remaining neutral. But a lot of people decided to try to make it into them being pro 2A.
Hate to say it, but it's a huge foot bullet.
The pro 2A crowd has literally shot themselves in the foot with this one. Feel good now?
They ask us not to carry into their stores. They won't enforce a ban, but they still ask "Please don't carry in our establishments."
Plenty enough for me. I will respect their wishes and not carry in their establishments. Since I carry 90% of the time, it's quite likely I won't visit their establishments. At the same time, they're STILL not taking a strong stance and enforcing bans. I really gotta say, they're giving a LOT of second chances. It actually surprises me that they're not actively enforcing a no guns policy, but rather being passive about it.
I do gotta say, though, those who celebrated Starbucks as pro 2a were quite mistaken. Starbucks was neutral the entire time. They gave us gun owners/open carriers/whatever you wanna call us a chance. They simply wanted to go by whatever laws were applicable. But there were those who wanted to take that as a "victory" of Starbucks being pro gun, via proxy that local laws were in favor of open carriers. Sorry, but I think there were some that took the neutral stance and ran with it as if Starbucks WANTED us in there with guns. They didn't. They wanted voters to decide. It takes neither side. They were neutral. Think they were actually pro 2A?
NOPE.
They just wanted to serve coffee to people, make their profit and go home at the end of the day, plain and simple. Guns be damned, politics be damned.
Now that a few have screwed it up, they've gone ahead and made a statement because they were used as a political war ground when they just didn't want to be involved in any of this.
Despite the fact that it was a minority of us open carriers, us open carriers that chose to use Starbucks as a political battleground to make them seem pro 2a screwed things up royally.
We decided to have weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc. meetings at Starbucks. We decided to have Starbucks appreciation days, though there wasn't really anything to appreciate aside from being realistic and taking a neutral stance, as I wish more businesses would. But as we've seen, taking a neutral stance gets taken as being for one side or another.
I gotta say, they really did give more than a fair shot at remaining neutral. But a lot of people decided to try to make it into them being pro 2A.
Hate to say it, but it's a huge foot bullet.
The pro 2A crowd has literally shot themselves in the foot with this one. Feel good now?
I wonder. Those idiots that dressed up and hauled their tacticool asses to Starbucks to "support" them, were they otherwise open carriers before or after that? I'd bet most of them weren't.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
While some say a few caused this revised position of Starbucks I would say there were many more with attitudes of in your face on both sides of the issue.
Some brought up the issue of using Starbucks logo as a promotion for pro carry and add in the appreciation day all in opposition of their original request not to take a position but to abide by State Law.
Some now vow not to visit Starbucks anymore, our speak poorly of them when they have disregarded the original request and in essence today still standby their stance today as they did in the beginning, how's big some of you aren't!
Some brought up the issue of using Starbucks logo as a promotion for pro carry and add in the appreciation day all in opposition of their original request not to take a position but to abide by State Law.
Some now vow not to visit Starbucks anymore, our speak poorly of them when they have disregarded the original request and in essence today still standby their stance today as they did in the beginning, how's big some of you aren't!
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Dollars to donuts they weren't.
Those of us who do it day in, day out, necessarily learn a thing or two about giving and receiving respect.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I reject that rights can be "statutory" I acknowledge that the government and statist accept this and at the present time that is how our government works.
I absolutely believe a property owner has the right to deny service to anyone for any reason, the coercion and force of the state is more detrimental to liberty than bigoted property/business owners.