Starbuck's Caving In

[singlesix]

I can no longer visit Starbucks (and several Indy area gun shops).

Oh no you didn't! I'd Rep you but I have Zero points to give.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The left constantly is pushing a social agenda. You would think that CEOs would stay above it. BTW, conservatives tend to react. What we need to do is demand that the left stay out of social issues.

We do have too many gun rights activists who want to be in your face. But from what I have read of Starbucks position, it is more like "Don't ask, don't tell". They are not going to ask (ie ban) if you are carrying. And you should be not telling (OC).

The whole OC issue is really about being able to strut around like you are a big shot. Too many cops due OC in civilian clothes with a badge and gun. It is like saying "look at me! I am important! My life is worth more than yours!" Same reason that the cops want to be the only ones with cool guns.

And guns are status symbols that convey that the person's life is worth more than those around them. Cops, of course, like this status. But look at the mayors, governors and celebrities who have bodyguards just to convey how important they are, how valuable they are.[/QUOTE]

I knew it was all my fault!

 

[Trooper]

No, Starbucks was neutral to carrying. You are wrong in specifying that they cared if you OCed or CCed. They WERE neutral. They now request you not bring your firearms onto their property OPEN CARRY or CONCEALED. That is not neutral and if you CC on their property thinking that they do not care because you CC then you are not misunderstanding their policy change.

They are REQUESTING. Not the same as forbidding.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

They are REQUESTING. Not the same as forbidding.

Correct. No one is denying that. BNAB didn't use the word "forbid", either.

Why would you want to spend your money somewhere that has opposite interests to your own? Somewhere that does not want you there? (Don't confuse 'you' with 'your money')

 

[level0]

If Starbucks wasn't choosing a side, the CEO would have kept his mouth shut. He wasn't choosing a side, until now.

It's not complicated.

This cat has clearly chosen his side, it's the side I'm against, and I won't be back in their stores. Ever. Some of the soft-pedaling in this thread is sickening. My money, my time, my beliefs, and my ethos are too valuable to me.

 

[Trooper]

If Starbucks wasn't choosing a side, the CEO would have kept his mouth shut. He wasn't choosing a side, until now.

It's not complicated.

This cat has clearly chosen his side, it's the side I'm against, and I won't be back in their stores. Ever. Some of the soft-pedaling in this thread is sickening. My money, my time, my beliefs, and my ethos are too valuable to me.

I am sure that the other side is saying the same thing, that he sided with us.

He is basically doing the political two step.

 

[Roadie]

Just as I said. Moms Demand Action is claiming this victory as their own, and gun owners are bashing each other over how the other chooses to carry. Huge victory for the other side, and we as gun owners are divided. Sad.

"Moms Demand Action congratulates Starbucks on its decision to keep weapons out of its stores. SInce July, Moms Demand Action members around the country have been asking Starbucks to change its policy, which had allowed patrons to carry loaded firearms into Starbucks stores in states that allow open and concealed carry. We are grateful to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz for stating unequivocally, “Everyone is welcome in our stores, but weapons are not.”"

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I am sure that the other side is saying the same thing, that he sided with us.

He is basically doing the political two step.

Now this, I agree with. They'll remain angry... and others will count it as a hollow victory.

But, it's still a slight against us. It's not harsh, it's not "sign on the door", it's not "ask you to leave"... but it's the opinion and view of the highest person in the company.

I'm sure MDA is saying something like "We've made progress, but it's not enough!"... because neutrality, or slightly-left of neutrality is never enough for fascists. Totality is the goal.

MDA, though, is under the opinion that this means we can't OC in Starbucks. We can. All we want. And Starbucks won't do a thing about it. If you didn't know what Howard said... nothing changes at all. No one will ask you to leave.

 

[GuyRelford]

I was just interviewed by Fox59 News on this issue. The story will air tonight during the 5pm and 6pm news.

Personally, I'm disappointed and I will stop doing business with Starbucks. But unfortunately, I think that we as gun owners had as much (or more) to do with making Starbucks feel the need to make this announcement as the anti-gun groups.

Guy

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"Moms Demand Action congratulates Starbucks on its decision to keep weapons out of its stores."

See, it's misleading and incorrect **** like this that really pisses me off. They are now rallying around the idea that Starbucks has "banned" guns in the stores. They haven't. At all.

Now I'm torn on whether I want to continue OC'ing in Starbucks, or like I said, not go anymore.

****ing hate MDA.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just as I said. Moms Demand Action is claiming this victory as their own, and gun owners are bashing each other over how the other chooses to carry. Huge victory for the other side, and we as gun owners are divided. Sad.

We could equally claim victory by pointing out that Starbucks hasn't actually changed their policy in the slightest. They aren't banning guns in their stores. There is no victory or defeat in this one, just spin. If they start putting up "no guns" signs or asking people to leave, that's different.

I don't let people smoke in my house. I still let my friends who are smokers visit. I'm not pro or anti smoking, I don't have a position and don't advocate for either side. I'm more strongly anti-smoking than Starbucks is anti-gun because I actually enforce my "request" inside my own home.

If Starbucks puts up a no guns sign or starts enforcing it, then I'll boycott them just like I boycott the local gun stores that don't want me carrying a gun inside.

 

[chezuki]

I hope Starbucks issues a statement reiterating that they don't wish to be the stage for either side of the debate in response to MDA's claim of victory.

 

[JTB4]

The statement was issued to alleviate any 'side-taking', but has clearly backfired. Like a previous poster said - would have been more beneficial to just say nothing. Stay tuned for the next memo...

 

[halfmileharry]

I was just interviewed by Fox59 News on this issue. The story will air tonight during the 5pm and 6pm news.

Personally, I'm disappointed and I will stop doing business with Starbucks. But unfortunately, I think that we as gun owners had as much (or more) to do with making Starbucks feel the need to make this announcement as the anti-gun groups.

Guy

I have to agree with this to a point. What ever happened to "Walk softly and carry a big stick"?
Notoriety isn't always a good thing. Just go about our business like every other Tom, Dick, and Harry on the streets.

 

[terrehautian]

First Starbucks, then who will they boycott to get the same result? This is a dangerous, downhill slope that Starbucks started with this new policy.

 

[BravoMike]

I have to agree with this to a point. What ever happened to "Walk softly and carry a big stick"?
Notoriety isn't always a good thing. Just go about our business like every other Tom, Dick, and Harry on the streets.

In hindsight, I have to agree with Guy. Starbucks policy, previous to this, was not take a side and we had nothing to fight for because it was something that was allowed. If MDA was causing a disturbance and not gun owners, then maybe the outcome would have been different. Of course that is speculation, but in this case we do know that the protest by they anti and pro side both has resulted in Starbucks' stance.

 

[GuyRelford]

This is strongly stated, but makes a very valid point.

This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things ? Starbucks

And for the record, this is not another "open carry" debate. I fully support open carry. This is about our side putting Starbucks into a position where they felt they had no other choice but to make this announcement. Starbucks wanted to remain neutral and we forced them into making a decision that the other side can now claim as a victory.

There is a valuable lesson in this and I hope that we learn from it.

Guy

 

[Trooper]

This is strongly stated, but makes a very valid point.

This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things ? Starbucks

And for the record, this is not another "open carry" debate. I fully support open carry. This is about our side putting Starbucks into a position where they felt they had no other choice but to make this announcement. Starbucks wanted to remain neutral and we forced them into making a decision that the other side can now claim as a victory.

There is a valuable lesson in this and I hope that we learn from it.

Guy

These guys do not care. If you do not agree with them then you are the enemy. it is all or nothing.

 

[GuyRelford]

Another article that makes the same point:

Our own worst enemy | The Bang Switch

Guy

 

[Smokepole]

StarBuckshots?

How about Buckshot Stars?