Oh, yeah, I don’t think this situation is in any way an indictment on Starbucks. I don’t really even see a lot of backlash directed to the company itself, more to the store/employees.
They were holding chants in the store the following day saying Starbucks was racist.
Starbucks is one of the most liberal companies in the United States. It's so odd to see people who would typically be on the same side of the conversation in such a battle of virtue.
What would lead me to believe this is not the case? Can you provide any evidence?
I can not, neither can you. Must be a hate crime!
Now I am a racist here lol.
A white chick spent two hours at starbucks and bought nothing. Was she dealing with the same person? We dont know! If she was its definitely racist. Yet that has not been asked here.
I have worked in restaurants for much longer than I would like to admit. At times customers get kicked out of restaurants. Police are called at times.
White or Black I kick these people out, when they refuse to leave I call the cops.
I fully admit this could be a racist act. Yet there is no proof saying this.
Provide me proof this was a hate crime, then I fully support the other side.
I get many of you are not business owners here. I dont want non paying customers at my work site. That is not a racist issue.
Guys came to a business and bought nothing, refused to buy anything. They were asked to leave. What happens after that is on them.
I dont get it people say!I am absolutely racist about non paying customers.
How much money did these guy spend at Starbucks? Not a dime!
This is not a hate crime. Just bad customers.
I dont get it? So are doctors and lawyers telling me how restaurants should run without ever being in that enviroment. Definately some accountants here too.
I get that this could be a racist issue. Yet it does not sound like one. I get Black lives matter. The media reports all kinds of things.
Two guys were arrested at starbucks for sitting at the front of the bus! This is not that. I respect the woman sitting at the front of the bus.
I ask if it is racist to kick non paying customers out of a private business?
I see no way in hell that this is not legal to do.
I dont care about starbucks, just my restaurant back ground. Customers come in and wont buy anything. I ask them to leave. They wont leave I call the cops.
Nothing racist about this.
For those that dont believe? Do that at a restaurant in Calgary. Refuse to leave and buy nothing. You will meet the police and be arrested.
I dont care what race or religion you follow. You will be arrested. The guys in question were arrested. Do the same thing at your local coffee hole. You will be arrested too.
This is not a black or white issue, just two guys being idiots.
Buy a coffee and this is not an issue. A dollar for a coffee, and here at CP it is racial wars. Why should a black man be forced to buy a coffee at the coffee house he entered?
Grab a brain. Bash me all you want.
Non paying customer was asked to leave! Race has nothing to do with this.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
They were holding chants in the store the following day saying Starbucks was racist.
Starbucks is one of the most liberal companies in the United States. It's so odd to see people who would typically be on the same side of the conversation in such a battle of virtue.
Oh, yeah, well that’s stupid then. Anytime you blame a multinational company for an incident at one store, that comes down to an improper application of policy, then you’re off it.
I am sure the potential was there for lawsuits that they overstepped their bounds. That they acted in a way that infringed on civil rights.
I know lots in this thread have taken a black/white (no pun intended) stance that because Starbucks had the no loitering policy, that once they called the cops, the cops had no choice but to arrest them. And that's just simply not true. Cops have the discretion to enforce the law as they see fit. If I am speeding, they can give me a warning. Similarly, if I am in a Starbucks and haven't purchased anything, they can give me the chance to leave. (ESPECIALLY, if, as in this case, the patrons hadn't truthfully been asked to leave, AND other patrons of a pasty skin tone were guilty of the exact same 'crime' but faced no consequences.)
The vast majority of the blame is on Starbucks but lets not act as if this isn't yet another unfortunate example of police in the US showing absolutely zero restraint when people of color are involved.
Similarly, if I am in a Starbucks and haven't purchased anything, they can give me the chance to leave. (ESPECIALLY, if, as in this case, the patrons hadn't truthfully been asked to leave, AND other patrons of a pasty skin tone were guilty of the exact same 'crime' but faced no consequences.)
By all accounts they did give them the offer to leave.
A cop can give you a warning for speeding sure, that's their discretion, the same way they can ask someone to leave private property nicely. But if you were to immediately continue to speed after receiving your warning, and told the police as much, and the police just let you do it because it's late and no one is out? Yeah, they aren't doing their jobs. And what happens if you get in an accident because of your speed when the cops knowingly allowed you to do so?
I don't like any admission that the police did wrong on the part of the City. However, the City still has a duty to their residents and spending $2 on a settlement and then giving a $200,000 grant for young entrepreneurs, which potentially was already being discussed before any of this happened and just made a nice excuse, it's a lot better than wasting time and money at the courts - especially with the perception of going against 2 black men who were discriminated against and are only asking for a dollar each.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a somewhat similar situation that happened in Canada, if people aren't aware: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ack-customers/
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 05-02-2018 at 02:38 PM.
By all accounts they did give them the offer to leave.
A cop can give you a warning for speeding sure, that's their discretion, the same way they can ask someone to leave private property nicely. But if you were to immediately continue to speed after receiving your warning, and told the police as much, and the police just let you do it because it's late and no one is out? Yeah, they aren't doing their jobs. And what happens if you get in an accident because of your speed when the cops knowingly allowed you to do so?
I don't like any admission that the police did wrong on the part of the City. However, the City still has a duty to their residents and spending $2 on a settlement and then giving a $200,000 grant for young entrepreneurs, which potentially was already being discussed before any of this happened and just made a nice excuse, it's a lot better than wasting time and money at the courts - especially with the perception of going against 2 black men who were discriminated against and are only asking for a dollar each.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a somewhat similar situation that happened in Canada, if people aren't aware: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ack-customers/
Yeah, that's what this boils down to. It's still ridiculous that the City had to settle anything, since a lawsuit would have been a slam dunk for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbles
I am sure the potential was there for lawsuits that they overstepped their bounds. That they acted in a way that infringed on civil rights.
I highly doubt it, though I suppose it might have made an interesting court case.
By all accounts they did give them the offer to leave.
A cop can give you a warning for speeding sure, that's their discretion, the same way they can ask someone to leave private property nicely. But if you were to immediately continue to speed after receiving your warning, and told the police as much, and the police just let you do it because it's late and no one is out? Yeah, they aren't doing their jobs. And what happens if you get in an accident because of your speed when the cops knowingly allowed you to do so?
Its been a week or so since this broke so forgive me if I am misremembering... But my recollection was that the only time they were informed of the no loitering policy was when they asked for bathroom access and were told it was only for paying customers. Is that not the case?
Also, your hypothetical jumps like 11 stages past what happened in this case, so forgive me for not addressing it.
Its been a week or so since this broke so forgive me if I am misremembering... But my recollection was that the only time they were informed of the no loitering policy was when they asked for bathroom access and were told it was only for paying customers. Is that not the case?
There's no clear indication of what actually happened prior to the police getting there. Some accounts have said they were asked to leave, others said they were only informed they would not be allowed to use the bathroom without purchasing.
However, what is not up for debate is that they were asked to leave multiple times by the police. It was their refusal to leave that got them arrested. Not blaming the police, not blaming the men, but that was the only expected result given the resolve of the men because Starbucks called the police.
Also, your example of given a warning for speeding is the equivalent of the police giving them the ability to simply leave the building (which they did). Allowing them to stay, is the equivalent of the police given you the a-okay to speed as much as you want.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 05-02-2018 at 05:41 PM.
