Starbuck's Caving In

[indydrew1]

I agree some people may have gotten out of hand and took it to far however I can not see that being anything but a small number and wish they would have just kept the same policy but Starbucks is a liberal company so we should not be surprised.

LIBERAL, Starbucks is LIBERAL??????????????

What you really meant to say is Starbucks is socially liberal. Like almost every company in the free/civilized/modern/not third world. And fiscally conservative like every company in the free/civilized/modern/not third world. What most companies are is not liberal. They are libertarian. There is a BIG difference. As far right as you can get on money/government regulation, as far left as you can get on bedroom/race issues. And what smart company would not behave that way? Make your market as big as possible. Sell the most/to the most/for the most. America.


When people say a company is liberal they are really saying the company is pro gay/pro environment/pro civil rights. Which they are. Which we all should be, judge ye not be judged. And every business sure as hell should be, no I don't want to sell coffee to the gays/jews/blacks???? Yea that makes a lot of sense....

The CEO and board of directors of large companies have a moral/LEGAL/ethical obligation to make the most money as possible legally for there shareholders. They are LEGALLY bound to do this. Being socially liberal makes for a bigger market, and more enriched/open/FREE society. Which means more capitalism. America.

 

[jamil]

LIBERAL, Starbucks is LIBERAL??????????????

What you really meant to say is Starbucks is socially liberal. Like almost every company in the free/civilized/modern/not third world. And fiscally conservative like every company in the free/civilized/modern/not third world. What most companies are is not liberal. They are libertarian. There is a BIG difference. As far right as you can get on money/government regulation, as far left as you can get on bedroom/race issues. And what smart company would not behave that way? Make your market as big as possible. Sell the most/to the most/for the most. America.


When people say a company is liberal they are really saying the company is pro gay/pro environment/pro civil rights. Which they are. Which we all should be, judge ye not be judged. And every business sure as hell should be, no I don't want to sell coffee to the gays/jews/blacks???? Yea that makes a lot of sense....

The CEO and board of directors of large companies have a moral/LEGAL/ethical obligation to make the most money as possible legally for there shareholders. They are LEGALLY bound to do this. Being socially liberal makes for a bigger market, and more enriched/open/FREE society. Which means more capitalism. America.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're going beyond what is reasonable. I don't want to be socially liberal. I don't HAVE to be. I don't HAVE to be pro gay. I don't HAVE to be pro-abortion. I don't HAVE to be "pro-environment", whateverthehell that is. I don't HAVE to be pro civil rights.

I don't have to like or approve or even tolerate what other individuals do, and whether I do or don't, it's my right to own my own opinion of the social world around me. But as an individualist, it's not my business what you do as long as you reciprocate. You do your thing, leave me to do mine. I think THAT is a more "libertarian" outlook than thinking that socially liberal things need to be embraced.

And actually I think that's what Starbucks was trying to do. I think their management wanted to be neutral even though they probably were not pro-gun. They didn't HAVE to be pro-gun to act with neutrality. But as both sides forced politics into the situation, they felt they had to do something. I disagree with what they did, but that's their choice, the consequences of which I'm sure they weighed.

 

[Mrmonte]

Starbucks had a live and let live approach, until "we" felt the need to stage open carry events in their place of business. If you feel that you need to leave home with an AR or shotgun on your back, stay home that day! I wouldn't leave the house if I thought I would need more than my EDC. A vocal minority forced Starbucks to make that decision, hopefully this will be a learning tool for gun owners in the future. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Which we all should be, judge ye not be judged.

I'm not sure how you would know what is good for everybody else. This sounds like the so-called do-gooder liberals and the freedom-stifling religious people.

 

[HICKMAN]

First of all, we don't gain credibility by acting like Wall Street Occupiers.

Second, it's one thing to rally around the State Capital in support of 2A, it's quite another to shove cameras in people's faces trying get a reaction or **** off cops for youtube hits.

Third: This is how you solve your coffee fetish problem.

 

[Caleb]

First of all, we don't gain credibility by acting like Wall Street Occupiers.

Second, it's one thing to rally around the State Capital in support of 2A, it's quite another to shove cameras in people's faces trying get a reaction or **** off cops for youtube hits.

Third: This is how you solve your coffee fetish problem.

I've been meaning to buy one for a while now...

 

[indydrew1]

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're going beyond what is reasonable. I don't want to be socially liberal. I don't HAVE to be. I don't HAVE to be pro gay. I don't HAVE to be pro-abortion. I don't HAVE to be "pro-environment", whateverthehell that is. I don't HAVE to be pro civil rights.

I don't have to like or approve or even tolerate what other individuals do, and whether I do or don't, it's my right to own my own opinion of the social world around me. But as an individualist, it's not my business what you do as long as you reciprocate. You do your thing, leave me to do mine. I think THAT is a more "libertarian" outlook than thinking that socially liberal things need to be embraced.

And actually I think that's what Starbucks was trying to do. I think their management wanted to be neutral even though they probably were not pro-gun. They didn't HAVE to be pro-gun to act with neutrality. But as both sides forced politics into the situation, they felt they had to do something. I disagree with what they did, but that's their choice, the consequences of which I'm sure they weighed.

You are 100% right.

I agree that you should be able to hate/not like; the gays/blacks/jews/panda's/whatever. And you do have that right, and I support it. I got my own issues believe me. Thats not the point, no one is making you like them, or change your feelings. "Socially liberal" companies do not demand that you like them. They demand you tolerate them/respect them; when you choose to accept there money/be on there property/represent them. You choose to do this when you take there money. They do not do it to try and indoctrinate you. They do it to make money. Freedom, capitalism is money. People free to live there lives as they see fit, without taking the liberty of another; means more money. America.

 

[avboiler11]

First of all, we don't gain credibility by acting like Wall Street Occupiers.

Effin A, said better than I could have possibly imagined.

 

[indydrew1]

I own both, this is better. But I admit I use the Keurig more because the pods for this Starbucks thing are a fortune.........

 

[N8RV]

I received the following reply to my e-mail to 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,

Vince D
customer service

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I received the following reply to my e-mail to 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,

Vince D
customer service

As expected. "We don't want to be in the middle of this, so... we pick THIS group as the one that gets its way." [effectively gets in the middle of it]

Schultz just contradicts his whole PC way of explaining this situation, and actually chooses a side. Rather than "Nothing changes, we stay neutral to local laws." or "We respectfully request that both groups stop staging events at our stores."

He selects "We want group A to appease and stop offending group B with their scary guns."

 

[buckstopshere]

Wait...what? OCers acting like Wall Street Occupiers? I guess I missed the OCers raping customers, ****ting on the floors, pissing in the coffees, refusing to leave, vandalizing property and getting into fist fights with cops.

Great idea, lets demonized the guys who broke no law but are made out to be criminals.

 

[avboiler11]

...but they AREN'T "getting their way".

"Getting their way" would be a firm, unwavering ban by Starbucks on non-LEOs carrying firearms inside their locations...which isn't what they did. They made a polite request that you not carry, that you are free to comply with or ignore.

I don't see a "request" to be remotely the same thing as a prohibition.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

...but they AREN'T "getting their way".

"Getting their way" would be a firm, unwavering ban by Starbucks on non-LEOs carrying firearms inside their locations...which isn't what they did. They made a polite request that you not carry, that you are free to comply with or ignore.

I don't see a "request" to be remotely the same thing as a prohibition.

I added more to what I said. The decision from Schultz landed 100% on the side of MDA. It isn't the totality that they want, but it was to appease THEM, not us.

He asked us to give something up. He didn't ask **** from them.

 

[jamil]

You are 100% right.

I agree that you should be able to hate/not like; the gays/blacks/jews/panda's/whatever. And you do have that right, and I support it. I got my own issues believe me. Thats not the point, no one is making you like them, or change your feelings. "Socially liberal" companies do not demand that you like them. They demand you tolerate them/respect them; when you choose to accept there money/be on there property/represent them. You choose to do this when you take there money. They do not do it to try and indoctrinate you. They do it to make money. Freedom, capitalism is money. People free to live there lives as they see fit, without taking the liberty of another; means more money. America.

I think it's innacurate to say companies are socially liberal. It's more accurate to say they're socially neutral.

 

[indydrew1]

As expected. "We don't want to be in the middle of this, so... we pick THIS group as the one that gets its way." [effectively gets in the middle of it]

So Starbucks hates America and freedom because they ASK, NOT BAN, you from bringing loaded guns in there bussiness.


I guess those that run gun shows must hate America and freedom more.........
I had a loaded Glock 26 in Starbucks today... no one said crap.

Cant remember the last time I got the old Glock loaded into a gun show..., ohh wait I cant. THEY DONT ALLOW IT.

Gun shows hate America and freedom more then Starbucks.



DONT SUPPORT GUNSHOWS IF YOU SUPPORT 2A RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This thread proves that.


I'm going to go play GTA 5 and get my hate out.....

 

[timsdl72]

Here's my take (it's 100% correct and not subject to questioning or difference of opinion). Unless a posted sign is in place, I'll go when and where I want. I do not carry in order to make a political point and I do not take pictures of me carrying for any purpose. Though I wish I could do business with only freedom friendly businesses, that is not the nature of our world unless we're willing to do without alot of things. As has already been mentioned, most gun shows we go to do not allow carry. How can we expect the rest of the business world to be wide open?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So Starbucks hates America and freedom because they ASK, NOT BAN, you from bringing loaded guns in there bussiness.


I guess those that run gun shows must hate America and freedom more.........
I had a loaded Glock 26 in Starbucks today... no one said crap.

Cant remember the last time I got the old Glock loaded into a gun show..., ohh wait I cant. THEY DONT ALLOW IT.

Gun shows hate America and freedom more then Starbucks.

Read again. He asked us to stop, he didn't ask them anything. He chose a side, rather than become neutral.

If anyone has read anything I've said, I'm aware of the difference between preference and prohibition. I, too, was in a Starbucks this morning with a Glock 23.

 

[indydrew1]

Wait...what? OCers acting like Wall Street Occupiers? I guess I missed the OCers raping customers, ****ting on the floors, pissing in the coffees, refusing to leave, vandalizing property and getting into fist fights with cops.

Great idea, lets demonized the guys who broke no law but are made out to be criminals.

Ok that was funny, sad, and true. Good job sir.

 

[yepthatsme]

If Starbucks wishes that the law abiding should not carry firearms into their outlets, (leave their guns at home which is totally unacceptable to me) does this also apply to law enforcement officers as well? If not, there seems to be a double standard here. I believe that if law enforcement officers are permitted to carry inside a private business, then so should law abiding citizens. However, this is just my opinion. I also believe that private businesses are free to dictate whatever legal policies they want. If I don't agree with them, then it is my right not to patronize them.

Just my