Starbucks

[TheDan]

have there been other kinds of political protests on their property?

Yeah... vegan's protesting use of dairy products and probably a bunch of other crap, too. I don't really pay attention to protests for things I don't care about

Common sense dictates that without the guns the protests would move elsewhere. Smart move on STBX part.

Maybe to someone who only associates guns with protests. Guns ≠ protests

 

[just jk]

Yeah... vegan's protesting use of dairy products and probably a bunch of other crap, too. I don't really pay attention to protests for things I don't care about



Maybe to someone who only associates guns with protests. Guns ≠ protests

i dont think i'd call a vegan protest over the use of dairy products a "political protest" or one with any government interest whatsoever

 

[Renegade]

True, but Starbucks didn't ask that people stop having political protests on their property; they asked that people stop bringing guns on their property. A subtle but important difference I think... They could have said, "If local laws allow you to open carry a gun then we respect that, but we ask that you stop having political demonstrations or group meetings relating to firearms in our stores."

Instead they said "...we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted..." I think they chose these words carefully. So now the guy in AZ who open carries a handgun as part of his daily routine and has nothing to do with open carry demonstrations is no longer welcome in their stores.

This is incorrect. Guns are still allowed. There are no signs, no notice. I just saw two people OC into a Starbucks at lunch, no problem, nobody really noticed as they were handguns. I was CC. No laws broken. They are hoping folks will apply common sense. Do you think the in-you-face-OC will back off and try a different tactic?

 

[just jk]

my final word on this thread full of absurdity

for the sake of the argument, we'll call the Starbucks CEO "anti-gun" - thats not a statement i agree with, but i digress

what i dont think can be argued is how passive his letter was - to gun owners - and it did seem to focus primarily on the OC crowd

if this is the new face of "anti-gun" - then we really dont have much to be concerned about.

we have to realize as gun owners that not everybody likes guns.....some folks are afraid of them, and some folks truly believe that they are the root of a big problem..they're entitled to that opinion- just as we are entitled to ours.

frankly - i'm of the mindset that we're better off trying to convince these folks that we are not the stereotype that they believe us to be - that we are hard working, civic minded individuals - and that we want to co-exists as long as the 2A is not infringed on. having a group OC demonstration in a Starbucks does not achieve that goal

even still - the CEO does not demand you not come in the store - he asks you to RESPECT their wishes......he doesnt say he will refuse to serve you - or even challenge you should you not respect their policy

again - EXTREMELY passive.....i still think its much ado about nothing.

 

[Texan2]

Maybe to someone who only associates guns with protests. Guns ≠ protests

Those who have been OCing long guns ove rthe past year in Starbucks were doing so to make a political statement. They typically announced it ahead of time and made sure they video recorded or at least took pics of their visits to get coffee with theier buddies. I don't know of anyone who would dispute that these OC events were polittically motivated. Or maybe I do know someone now.

 

[TheDan]

I don't know of anyone who would dispute that these OC events were polittically motivated. Or maybe I do know someone now.

Who me? lol... OC demonstrations are definitely politically motivated, but in typical leftist fashion the Starbucks CEO has identified firearms as is being the problem and not the demonstrations. They don't have to go together... I can understand why Starbucks wouldn't want political demonstrations on it's property (I mean face it, all these demonstrations are annoying...), but the problem isn't "guns."

Do you think the in-you-face-OC will back off and try a different tactic?

Is this a rhetorical question? lol...

 

[Ole Cowboy]

my final word on this thread full of absurdity

for the sake of the argument, we'll call the Starbucks CEO "anti-gun" - thats not a statement i agree with, but i digress

what i dont think can be argued is how passive his letter was - to gun owners - and it did seem to focus primarily on the OC crowd

if this is the new face of "anti-gun" - then we really dont have much to be concerned about.

we have to realize as gun owners that not everybody likes guns.....some folks are afraid of them, and some folks truly believe that they are the root of a big problem..they're entitled to that opinion- just as we are entitled to ours.

frankly - i'm of the mindset that we're better off trying to convince these folks that we are not the stereotype that they believe us to be - that we are hard working, civic minded individuals - and that we want to co-exists as long as the 2A is not infringed on. having a group OC demonstration in a Starbucks does not achieve that goal

even still - the CEO does not demand you not come in the store - he asks you to RESPECT their wishes......he doesnt say he will refuse to serve you - or even challenge you should you not respect their policy

again - EXTREMELY passive.....i still think its much ado about nothing.

Concur!

 

[Texan2]

in typical leftist fashion the Starbucks CEO has identified firearms as is being the problem and not the demonstrations.

Not sure how he did anything that could be identified as "leftist". He merely knows, as we all do, that asking these morons not to bring their guns means they won't come back, and the confrontations between cops and OCers at Starbucks will stop. Seemed like a reasonable and respectful request on the CEOs part.

 

[cbigclarke]

F*** Starbucks, Part II - YouTube