Starbucks closing stores after 2 black men arrested

It sounds like you've only been to Starbucks locations either in the suburbs or out in the sticks if you don't realize that policy is fairly common in densely populated areas. Perhaps try getting out of your bubble and see more of the world, you'll have a much more broad understanding of things that way.

 

I thought those dueling "protests" were hilarious. You'd have gay people going to Chik-Fil-A to make out and you'd have anti-gay right wingers there to support the business' stance....meanwhile the business just sat back and reaped the rewards of not catering to fringe left ideology. In many ways, the controversy in 2012 was the best thing that ever happened to that franchise.

 

This thread is really weird and amusing with the ignore function. I can only guess which triggered white guy is keeping this stupid topic alive.

FWIW, Starbucks is only good for three things as far as I can tell: (1) cleanish bathrooms for long road trips, (2) jobs for high school kids that are slightly better than similar jobs at burger joints, and (3) having some place other than a parking lot for people to gather and talk in small towns decimated by Walmartification.

 

I will point out that I have often gone to restaurants -- Papadeaux's and others -- got seated and then told the waiter I'm still waiting on my friends to arrive and would like to wait before ordering. This is standard cultural practice in America. It's kinda rude to not wait for your party before ordering and it is acceptable to secure the table. So comparisons to restaurants not only don't defend the manager's decision, it makes it all the worse.

No, I don't think we should. Yeah, it was one manager making a bad decision that the CEO doesn't approve of. But, the CEO didn't manage to prevent this decision. He may have done everything that was "reasonable to expect of him" but not enough to keep these two men from being discriminated against. So you want Starbucks to do more. You want them to feel the pain of not having done enough. You want to make sure that they make sure that this doesn't happen again. Do you do that by saying, "I understand. You did all you can reasonably do. You're bound to have a bad apple in all the thousands of managers you hire. Let's all be reasonable here and not make a mountain out of a molehill." No, that's a recipe for abetting a thousand more bad decisions by a thousand more future bad managers. No, you make them hurt by either suing the everliving **** out of them and/or protesting, boycotting, and shaming them into action. It's great the CEO is already on board. Now the shareholders need to get on board because they see the financial consequence of inaction. Looking at SBUX's stock price performance since April 12, protesters have not done nearly enough to provide the Board of Directors any motivation for doing more to avoid discrimination. The stock price is up ~20 cents. I'd say the public anger we've shown has been very weak. This was blatant racial discrimination. And people mostly don't care.

 

Wow, I'm reading about this now and it seems to have been blown way out of proportion. Here's how it should've gone down.

Manager has a store that gets abused by the homeless. They enact a policy for paying customers only. Two men walk into the store and sit down. They look homeless so the manager asks them to leave. Both men say they're waiting for a friend. Manager says store is for customers only so buy something or leave. Both men should've bought something or waited outside until their friend arrives and buys something. Now both men can converse with their friend in the store since someone in their party is a customer.

Situation over and dealt with rationally.

 

TRUE! Which is the crux of this matter. WERE they singled out? If so, they have a point. But still blame all around.

I do have to wonder...was this incident staged at all? Has this happened to these two people before? Something here sounds fishy. Maybe it was just an overly aggressive (or overtly racist) manager. BUT, maybe this wasn't an accident, either.

 

I don't frequent Starbucks. I do think all of knows the Starbucks atmosphere. That being said we don't know all the circumstances in this scenario. This could be a Starbucks where not a lot of people just hang out.

I think we at least need to know how long these guys were there

 

I'm not a coffee drinker, but I do like their hot chocolate and muffins.

 

You're not going to walk in a Pappadeaux's and be seated just to wait for someone and never plan on ordering food

 

I'm not sure it's a matter of how long they were there, from the reports, it wasn't until they asked to use the restroom that they were told to leave. Basically until they drew attention to themselves as non-customers.

I do find it funny though that people seemingly from the sticks or the suburbs don't understand that this is a VERY common policy for coffee shops or restaurants in densely populated areas to have. People just need to get out of their bubbles and see more of the world.

 

In fact, many restaurants have a policy to not seat incomplete parties. Probably something that would shock people that spent their lives in a small bubble.

 

Except by having such a large reaction, they are making it a big deal. That may be the right choice, and it may fade quickly away.

Conversely, United Airlines quickly discovered that not making things a big deal was a TERRIBLE response, so at the very least I can see why they are approaching it this way.

 

Yup, Star Bucks is doing the smart thing, unlike United. It does not matter if the manger was right or wrong, she was stupid to call the police.

 

Absolutely, when the men told that woman that they don't have to listen to her, she needs to know her place and get back in that kitchen. Glad people like you are here to point that out.

Clearly this is a case of a woman daring to infringe upon male privilege and it's good that it got her fired.

 

I don't believe the men in question told the employees that they intended to not buy anything, only that they were waiting. I could grab an 8-top at a Pappadeaux and sit there for a half-hour with my water, surfing facebook on my phone before a waiter dared to question me about whether my friends really existed or if it was appropriate for me to be holding a table for so long. Then I can tell them my friends aren't coming, and get up and leave (but stopping by the bathroom first because I've been sipping on my free water) without paying a dime or hearing a complaint. If that sounds incredible to you, it's because that's white privilege. The waiter will cuss me when I'm gone, but I have no doubt I can do it because they'd be afraid to offend me until it was really very clear that I was acting in bad faith.

Likewise, I bet I could have gone into that Philly Starbucks on April 11 and randomly said to an employee (since they wouldn't ask) that I'm just using the place as a meeting spot and I don't want to buy anything and they wouldn't have thrown me out.

The only places I've ever been where a "Bathrooms are for customers only" sign ever really applied to me (since I became an adult and cut my hair short) has been in high traffic tourist areas, like a restaurant near the Spanish Steps in Rome. In that case, I had a 3 year old in my arms so the waiter cut me some slack and let me use the bathroom anyway. Usually I do buy something from establishments when I use their bathroom, especially when I figure its a small owner or franchise business instead of a corporate owned site, but that's more about good manners than obligation.

 

"That's called damage control." Or saving her own ass, until proven otherwise.

I am not arguing that kind of policy does not exist elsewhere.

Sexist? That's kinda lame attempt.

 

This is amazing. Four pages ago someone commented how refreshing it was this thread was without the usual nonsense. Bobby threw some bait into the water, we went several posts without anyone responding and then BAM! Four pages later...

 

Ah, so you don't believe the woman because men said it wasn't true? Again, what happened to believing women? This is clearly an example of implicit misogyny.

 

I did no such thing.....and you've yet to post anything of substance....still.