• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calls grow to boycott starbucks after two black men arrested for not making order

leekohler2 said:
Give up. I've already tried to reason with that poster to no avail.
Click to expand...

Well, he's already lost the loitering argument. In any case, I'm just providing further insight into the situation, as well as, a different point of view. He nor anyone else need accept it, but they really should rethink their perspective if they firmly believe the store manager was in the right here. She wasn't.

Unless the store has "No Loitering/No Trespassing" signs posted or other signage that makes it clear customers must make a minimum purchase before using their restroom facilities, there's nothing illegal about potential customers entering an establishment and quietly waiting for the remainder of their party to arrive before placing their order. It's no different than going to a family-style/fine dinning restaurant and informing the waiter/waitress you're waiting for other members of your party to arrive before placing your order. Surely, you've done that before and weren't thrown out of the restaurant. So, what made this situation any different?
 
Objective Voice said:
Well, he's already lost the loitering argument. In any case, I'm just providing further insight into the situation, as well as, a different point of view. He nor anyone else need accept it, but they really should rethink their perspective if they firmly believe the store manager was in the right here. She wasn't.

Unless the store has "No Loitering/No Trespassing" signs posted or other signage that makes it clear customers must make a minimum purchase before using their restroom facilities, there's nothing illegal about potential customers entering an establishment and quietly waiting for the remainder of their party to arrive before placing their order. It's no different than going to a family-style/fine dinning restaurant and informing the waiter/waitress you're waiting for other members of your party to arrive before placing your order. Surely, you've done that before and weren't thrown out of the restaurant. So, what made this situation any different?
Click to expand...

It seems obvious to me.
 
Mason66 said:
You can't say the manager was wrong until we hear from her why she did what she did.
Click to expand...

Fair enough...Let's here her side of the story.

Oops...sorry...no can do. She's already left the company. So, unless she speak out publicly we may never know her side of the story. Regardless, with the same thing happening at two separate Starbuck's stores in two different states in two different parts of the country, I'm inclined to believe this was a test of Starbuck's customer policy. (I'd like to think this was just a coincidence, but something tells me it wasn't.)
 
roguenuke said:
Do people not understand that managers are different in how they handle situations, even within a same store? You would need to find evidence that several managers each both refused bathroom access to black patrons but allowed access to white patrons under the same circumstances. Then you could claim bias. We have no idea if the manager in the above example refused to give the code to black patrons. You even say it was a different Starbucks.
Click to expand...

Hence, the reason I asked:

Is it possible this was a set-up to test Starbuck's bathroom/customer service policy?
Click to expand...
 
Nilly said:
Your link suggests a rate of about 2.2x that is still cause for concern.

No-ones suggesting that midwives go around strangling black babies.

BUT, as even your link shows, there is a clear disparity in infant mortality between black and white babies.

If maternity wards aren't displaying blatant racial discrimination, then what's causing this disparity to manifest down clear racial lines? It's clearly not genetic, and it can't be down to individual choices of families as (unless blacks are predisposed to make worse choices than whites) it would then manifest equally across all races. Hmmmm?

Btw, Lovebug gave you a hint in a post a few up from here.
Click to expand...

If you are claiming that black babies are dying as infants due to racism then support your claim. Show me how racism is impacting this. Any infants dying is cause for concern, I agree, I am not arguing that. I am arguing your unsupported claim that they are dying because of racism. You are continually making this claim, I am asking you to support it.
 
lurchadams said:
<gasp>! Who are the, "them"? Against whom are you going to wield your mighty, "power"?
Click to expand...

If I didnt see the quote I would have thought you
were speaking to Thor or a demi-god, not Acadia.
 
Objective Voice said:
Hence, the reason I asked:
Click to expand...

It is possible, but then we would need to know exactly how it was done. How many times did these two come in? What exactly was the conversations that they had? Why choose these particular Starbucks (btw, what was the second one, the one with the white guy who was allowed, do you have a link)? If it was done in two different stores, did they ensure they used two different people, one black and one white asking the same barista? Those are important to finding out if it is a problem with Starbucks policy, how it is enforced, certain baristas or managers being racist assholes, or something else.

And actually this sounded funny to me to begin with because of them not releasing their names and having a lawyer immediately called instead of them simply leaving when asked and taking it to the media. They were counting on getting arrested by the cops.
 
Nilly said:
And therein lies the reason behind the boycott.

A policy doesn't have to be racist to enforced in a racist way. The same is true for a law.
Click to expand...
Accept I'm not aware of evidence of this.
 
The only reasons for boycotting Starbucks are their crappy coffee and ridiculous pricing. Not to mention the empty calorie junk food they also offer.
 
j-mac said:
And the boycott train rolls on....
Click to expand...



I thought I read that the store and the chain had apologized.

If so, this further action undoes that apology and continues, if not deepens the divide. And it likely punishes those who least deserve it.

It bothers me deeply because it shows that in some cases people don't want healing, they don't want to befriend their neighbor, they want to keep hate alive.

It would be so easy to reach out to that community which appears does not want to be reached.
 
Nilly said:
Errr ok. I'm perfectly fine with that.

I am for both govt and consumer policing of business.
Click to expand...
Im asking this as an intellectual exercise but do you think if society makes demands of a buisiness to operate in a certain way and the buisiness complies, that society also has an obligation to patronize that buisiness?



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Starbucks to close 8,000 stores for racial-bias education on May 29 after arrest of two black men

"PHILADELPHIA — Starbucks will close more than 8,000 U.S. stores for an afternoon next month to train employees after two black men were arrested while waiting at one of the coffee chain’s Philadelphia stores last week.

The “racial-bias education” training is scheduled for May 29 for nearly 175,000 employees, the company said in a statement Tuesday.

Starbucks chief executive Kevin Johnson said he had spent the past few days in Philadelphia listening to the community, learning what the company did wrong and what steps were necessary to fix the problem.

“Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities,” Johnson said in the statement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nscious-bias-training/?utm_term=.0bad3adc1115
 
roguenuke said:
It is possible, but then we would need to know exactly how it was done. How many times did these two come in? What exactly was the conversations that they had? Why choose these particular Starbucks (btw, what was the second one, the one with the white guy who was allowed, do you have a link)? If it was done in two different stores, did they ensure they used two different people, one black and one white asking the same barista? Those are important to finding out if it is a problem with Starbucks policy, how it is enforced, certain baristas or managers being racist assholes, or something else.

And actually this sounded funny to me to begin with because of them not releasing their names and having a lawyer immediately called instead of them simply leaving when asked and taking it to the media. They were counting on getting arrested by the cops.
Click to expand...

Yes, a similar incident occurred in another Starbuck's store, this one in Redondo Beach, CA. (See video link in my post #195). I think most of your other questions will be answered once you've watch the video and read the article.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I thought I read that the store and the chain had apologized.

If so, this further action undoes that apology and continues, if not deepens the divide. And it likely punishes those who least deserve it.

It bothers me deeply because it shows that in some cases people don't want healing, they don't want to befriend their neighbor, they want to keep hate alive.

It would be so easy to reach out to that community which appears does not want to be reached.
Click to expand...

I don't see boycotts or protests as keeping the hate alive particularly in those instances where an obvious wrong has been committed, as much as, keeping the public fully aware that racial hatred/bias still exists! It's clearly a double-standard if you allow White customers to utilized your facilities without placing an order and they're neither accosted, asked to leave the premises nor have law enforcement called on them whereas such things are done to a Black customer who did nothing more than visit your establishment and wait patiently for other members of his party to arrive.

I could certainly understand if the patron - Black or White - was causing problems, ie., being unruly, or as I stated in a previous post said patron was loitering, acting suspecious giving every appearance that he/she was casing the joint/looking for trouble. But just as in a fine dinning setting, if I visit your establishment, sit down, look over the menu, tell my waiter/waitress I'm still waiting for others in my party to arrive and I'll hold off ordering until they show up and in turn I'm denied access to the restroom while waiting because I haven't made a purchase and I'm told I'd have to place my order now or leave, you can bet with 100% certainty I'd leave and wouldn't return to that restaurant. Moreover, I'd be telling everyone in every format I could think of exactly how I was treated and recommend they NOT patron that restaurant again.

It's not about wanting to keep the hate alive. It's about informing people that in some circles the racial hatred still exists!
 
Objective Voice said:
I don't see boycotts or protests as keeping the hate alive particularly in those instances where an obvious wrong has been committed, as much as, keeping the public fully aware that racial hatred/bias still exists! It's clearly a double-standard if you allow White customers to utilized your facilities without placing an order and they're neither accosted, asked to leave the premises nor have law enforcement called on them whereas such things are done to a Black customer who did nothing more than visit your establishment and wait patiently for other members of his party to arrive.

I could certainly understand if the patron - Black or White - was causing problems, ie., being unruly, or as I stated in a previous post said patron was loitering, acting suspecious giving every appearance that he/she was casing the joint/looking for trouble. But just as in a fine dinning setting, if I visit your establishment, sit down, look over the menu, tell my waiter/waitress I'm still waiting for others in my party to arrive and I'll hold off ordering until they show up and in turn I'm denied access to the restroom while waiting because I haven't made a purchase and I'm told I'd have to place my order now or leave, you can bet with 100% certainty I'd leave and wouldn't return to that restaurant. Moreover, I'd be telling everyone in every format I could think of exactly how I was treated and recommend they NOT patron that restaurant again.

It's not about wanting to keep the hate alive. It's about informing people that in some circles the racial hatred still exists!
Click to expand...



Is there evidence this was happening?

Your proof?

Not going to base anything based on hypothetical speculation.

One. Last. Time. Starbuck's has apologized, it is closing its stores for a day for sensitivity training; they have done more than enough. Your boycott would backfire.

And oh, wait. You will likely know the effects of a real "boycott' soon. If Trump keeps punishing Canada like he's been you're going to see a Boycott America! stickers everywhere
 
Fearandloathing said:
Is there evidence this was happening?

Your proof?

Not going to base anything based on hypothetical speculation.
Click to expand...

There's video evidence that it's happened on two occasions in two separate Starbuck's stores in two different parts of the country. Was this coincidence or evidence of corporate policy or just two store managers who saw similar situations unfold in their stores and reached the same conclusion? Idk...but it does seem rather odd, don't you think?

One. Last. Time. Starbuck's has apologized, it is closing its stores for a day for sensitivity training; they have done more than enough.
Click to expand...

Good, they've apologized and instructed their employees to attend mandatory cultural sensitivity training. It's certainly the right thing to do.

Your boycott would backfire.
Click to expand...

Not my boycott. I haven't called for anyone to stop being a patron at any Starbuck's store. Try again.

And oh, wait. You will likely know the effects of a real "boycott' soon. If Trump keeps punishing Canada like he's been you're going to see a Boycott America! stickers everywhere
Click to expand...

Sidenote: I often wonder why Canadians get so caught up in American politics?
 
Objective Voice said:
Yes, a similar incident occurred in another Starbuck's store, this one in Redondo Beach, CA. (See video link in my post #195). I think most of your other questions will be answered once you've watch the video and read the article.
Click to expand...

I watched the video. It starts supposedly after he was refused the code. But he claims he was going to buy something (yet he couldn't do so before he went to the restroom when he could have went while he was waiting?). Then he stops some random guy to ask about him getting the code. Then he confronts the manager and is kicked out for filming her. We simply don't know why he was not given the code or what exactly happened. The whole video reminded me of Louder With Crowder and his attempts to setup bakeries or going into the Planet Fitness pretending to be transgender.

And no, that LA video didn't answer any of my questions pertaining to the Philly incident because it occurred months ago. That does not prove racial bias.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
There's video evidence that it's happened on two occasions in two separate Starbuck's stores in two different parts of the country. Was this coincidence or evidence of corporate policy or just two store managers who saw similar situations unfold in their stores and reached the same conclusion? Idk...but it does seem rather odd, don't you think?

Good, they've apologized and instructed their employees to attend mandatory cultural sensitivity training. It's certainly the right thing to do.

Not my boycott. I haven't called for anyone to stop being a patron at any Starbuck's store. Try again.

Sidenote: I often wonder why Canadians get so caught up in American politics?
Click to expand...

There's evidence around the internet that other people of all different races in many different Starbucks have been denied the code, while in many other different Starbucks people of all races, creeds whatever are given the codes. There are so many variables as to why someone could have been denied the codes besides race.
 
Objective Voice said:
Well, he's already lost the loitering argument. In any case, I'm just providing further insight into the situation, as well as, a different point of view. He nor anyone else need accept it, but they really should rethink their perspective if they firmly believe the store manager was in the right here. She wasn't.

Unless the store has "No Loitering/No Trespassing" signs posted or other signage that makes it clear customers must make a minimum purchase before using their restroom facilities, there's nothing illegal about potential customers entering an establishment and quietly waiting for the remainder of their party to arrive before placing their order. It's no different than going to a family-style/fine dinning restaurant and informing the waiter/waitress you're waiting for other members of your party to arrive before placing your order. Surely, you've done that before and weren't thrown out of the restaurant. So, what made this situation any different?
Click to expand...

It is not legal to simply refuse to leave a business when an employee asks you to leave, especially if they do call the cops on you and you refuse them too. It is different.
 
:eek:t

Several years ago I was in the car at a red light smack downtown Phoenix. Diagonally across the street a new Jamba Juice had just opened and to promote it there was a guy dressed like a banana and another guy dressed like grapes standing out front waving at cars.

It was just too perfect an opportunity for me to pass up. Being a smartass I rolled down my window and stuck my head out and yelled, "I'm sick of you fruits protesting. Get a life!" Hahaha! What a comic I was. Proud of my awesome sense of humor.

They laughed and then two beats later the banana yelled, "Get used to it, asshole. We're coming back in bunches!"

They had me. :2rofll: The three of us looking across the street laughing at each other. Good on the banana. It was an awesome put down. I'll never forget it.
 
Risky Thicket said:
:eek:t

Several years ago I was in the car at a red light smack downtown Phoenix. Diagonally across the street a new Jamba Juice had just opened and to promote it there was a guy dressed like a banana and another guy dressed like grapes standing out front waving at cars.

It was just too perfect an opportunity for me to pass up. Being a smartass I rolled down my window and stuck my head out and yelled, "I'm sick of you fruits protesting. Get a life!" Hahaha! What a comic I was. Proud of my awesome sense of humor.

They laughed and then two beats later the banana yelled, "Get used to it, asshole. We're coming back in bunches!"

They had me. :2rofll: The three of us looking across the street laughing at each other. Good on the banana. It was an awesome put down. I'll never forget it.
Click to expand...

Amazing how some people can have such quick comeback. That was terrific.
 
It is astounding to me that the CEO saying "Sorry we have to do better" and immediately jumping on his plane so that he could say sorry to two dudes who got treated rudely is not enough.

I mean what do we need out of Starbucks?

Does Kevin need to do Seppuku?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom