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

[Acadia]

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?

Of course it's not enough. This whole thing became about Marxist orthodoxy, the vilification of capitalism and reinforcing the narrative that America is racist and divided the moment the story broke and the video went viral.

Right now, there are progressive, Leftist, socialist groups running each other over to take command of this mass crucifixion of Starbucks.
Seppuku? No. Kevin has ensured America that his entire organization is racist and in need of serious social justice reform.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Of course it's not enough. This whole thing became about Marxist orthodoxy, the vilification of capitalism and reinforcing the narrative that America is racist and divided the moment the story broke and the video went viral.

Right now, there are progressive, Leftist, socialist groups running each other over to take command of this mass crucifixion of Starbucks.
Seppuku? No. Kevin has ensured America that his entire organization is racist and in need of serious social justice reform.

"THERE WILL BE NO DEVIATION FROM THE NORMS OF UTOPIA, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED RESISTANCE IS FUTILE" sure does radiate fear.

But of course we are never good enough and every time we are not the BUS DRIVERS TO UTOPIA do one of their spectacular freak outs.

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

Unless you're with someone who can watch your food, who places their order at a fast-food restaurant and then goes to the restroom? Weird...:screwy

In any case, as I've said before I don't know if this is racism on display or a coincidence of two different store managers interpreting corporate policy the same way (correctly or incorrectly) or someone (or group) testing Starbuck's corporate policy on non-paying customers using their facilities. One the one hand, I can certainly understand the loitering angle. You don't know if the patron is waiting for others to show up or why, if their intentions are honorable or nefarious. You just don't know. You also don't want people just hanging out at your store causing problems (no matter how minor) for your paying customers. So, I certainly understand the store manager's concerns in both instances. But I also understand the optics as many Black people see it when two men are arrested just for waiting on another of their party to arrive and another is denied access to the bathroom simply because they lingered around too long without placing an order. Some people may see this as a private business operating as it sees fit while others will see it as racial descrimination harking back to the days of "N***ers, stay off the grass, White drinking fountains/restrooms-only". Nonetheless, I still say that while such behavior ("loitering") is to be expected at a coffee house (and that's what Starbuck's is...a coffee house franchise), if it's become a problem at some stores they need to place the appropriate signage at these shops making such visible for all to see. The downside to doing this, of course, is said coffee house franchise risks losing many of its "walk-by" customers who simply want to sit down and read the news before carrying on with their day.

Note: I still contend that the manager at the Philly store was wrong. Once she was made aware that the two men were waiting for another of their party to arrive and especially once that 3rd party arrived and confirmed their story, she should have let the matter go and apologies right there on the spot. She made the wrong choice and now Starbuck's is paying a price to their bottom line and its reputation.

 

[Fearandloathing]

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?

I don't know. Do Canadians 'get caught up ' in American politics? I don't even consider myself "caught up" in American politics, but being a dual citizen I figure some interest is owed. Besides its the most entertaining show in the world, who else has a two year orangutan an arm's reach from "the button". And even sitcoms aren't written this nutso.

But caught up? I couldn't care if you elected Charles Manson as long as it stays south of the 49th

 

[roguenuke]

Unless you're with someone who can watch your food, who places their order at a fast-food restaurant and then goes to the restroom? Weird...:screwy

In any case, as I've said before I don't know if this is racism on display or a coincidence of two different store managers interpreting corporate policy the same way (correctly or incorrectly) or someone (or group) testing Starbuck's corporate policy on non-paying customers using their facilities. One the one hand, I can certainly understand the loitering angle. You don't know if the patron is waiting for others to show up or why, if their intentions are honorable or nefarious. You just don't know. You also don't want people just hanging out at your store causing problems (no matter how minor) for your paying customers. So, I certainly understand the store manager's concerns in both instances. But I also understand the optics as many Black people see it when two men are arrested just for waiting on another of their party to arrive and another is denied access to the bathroom simply because they lingered around too long without placing an order. Some people may see this as a private business operating as it sees fit while others will see it as racial descrimination harking back to the days of "N***ers, stay off the grass, White drinking fountains/restrooms-only". Nonetheless, I still say that while such behavior ("loitering") is to be expected at a coffee house (and that's what Starbuck's is...a coffee house franchise), if it's become a problem at some stores they need to place the appropriate signage at these shops making such visible for all to see. The downside to doing this, of course, is said coffee house franchise risks losing many of its "walk-by" customers who simply want to sit down and read the news before carrying on with their day.

Note: I still contend that the manager at the Philly store was wrong. Once she was made aware that the two men were waiting for another of their party to arrive and especially once that 3rd party arrived and confirmed their story, she should have let the matter go and apologies right there on the spot. She made the wrong choice and now Starbuck's is paying a price to their bottom line and its reputation.

If you are ordering a drink from Starbucks, it will take about 5-10 minutes (depending on how busy they are) to make it. And if they know you are heading to the restroom, they may very well even just keep it in the area where they make it instead of leaving it out. So long as you haven't taken custody of it, they are responsible for getting you the drink you ordered.

The 3rd Party did not arrive until after the police requested they leave 3 times and they refused. How do we know how long that would have taken? We don't have any sort of time frame at all for this incident until after the police arrive and videos automatically start rolling.

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

Granted, but my point remains the same. The store manager should have dropped the whole thing once the 3rd party arrived and confirmed why his two friends/associates were waiting for him. I, being a reasonable guy, wouldn't have pressed the matter. However, I understand her actions somewhat if the store had a problem with loiterers and/or shoplifters. I'm trying to give the manager the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard when two different stores in two different parts of the country do the same thing to people of one racial demographic but not the other. One can't help to cry "racism" at this, but like the late great Paul Harvey use to say, "...but wait 'til you hear the rest of the story".

I'll still waiting on all the facts to come out.

 

[roguenuke]

Granted, but my point remains the same. The store manager should have dropped the whole thing once the 3rd party arrived and confirmed why his two friends/associates were waiting for him. I, being a reasonable guy, wouldn't have pressed the matter. However, I understand her actions somewhat if the store had a problem with loiterers and/or shoplifters. I'm trying to give the manager the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard when two different stores in two different parts of the country do the same thing to people of one racial demographic but not the other. One can't help to cry "racism" at this, but like the late great Paul Harvey use to say, "...but wait 'til you hear the rest of the story".

I'll still waiting on all the facts to come out.

I am not saying that the managers' actions/refusals were warranted in either case. I have an issue with the automatic cry of "racism" without knowing any real facts about this. The Philly incident had three other black patrons inside the store when it happened (one was a youtuber filming the incident while sipping her drink). And despite what many have said, those guys did not look surprised by the reaction, but rather happy. The one was smiling. It is all just really suspicious. The other woman who posted the most known video (her friend filmed it) is a writer and owns a company that works to market nonprofits. None of this is proof. It is just all of it together. Along with the fact that I still cannot find the names of the two guys who were arrested anywhere. Why not? Why are we not being allowed to verify who exactly they are?

 

[Objective Voice]

If you are ordering a drink from Starbucks, it will take about 5-10 minutes (depending on how busy they are) to make it. And if they know you are heading to the restroom, they may very well even just keep it in the area where they make it instead of leaving it out. So long as you haven't taken custody of it, they are responsible for getting you the drink you ordered.

Reasonable, but most people don't think that way. They go to the restroom before placing their order, not after.

The 3rd Party did not arrive until after the police requested they leave 3 times and they refused. How do we know how long that would have taken? We don't have any sort of time frame at all for this incident until after the police arrive and videos automatically start rolling.

Doesn't matter how many times the 2 Black guys were asked to leave. Doesn't matter how long it took for their 3rd party to arrive. Fact is, the White guy confirmed that the two Black guys were waiting on him. The manager and the cops should have listened and drop the whole thing. Instead, they felt compelled to press forward with the...what?...detention?

I would agree with you had the 3rd party not arrived until well after the "arrest" when the two Black men were taken away there wouldn't have been a way to collaborate their story and I would have had them charged with trespassing myself, but he was right there to affirm they were not their to cause problems and that they were waiting for him before holding a business-like meeting. Now, guess what this does to Starbuck's image? Send it down the drain as a less-customer-friendly environment especially if you're trying to hold an impromptu business meeting. The optics are bad on this one...all because someone had to be the Burger Queen and have it her way. Common-sense and cooler heads could have prevailed here. Instead, Starbuck's reputation is soiled. (Bad pun, but hey...:lamo )

 

[Objective Voice]

I am not saying that the managers' actions/refusals were warranted in either case. I have an issue with the automatic cry of "racism" without knowing any real facts about this. The Philly incident had three other black patrons inside the store when it happened (one was a youtuber filming the incident while sipping her drink). And despite what many have said, those guys did not look surprised by the reaction, but rather happy. The one was smiling. It is all just really suspicious. The other woman who posted the most known video (her friend filmed it) is a writer and owns a company that works to market nonprofits. None of this is proof. It is just all of it together. Along with the fact that I still cannot find the names of the two guys who were arrested anywhere. Why not? Why are we not being allowed to verify who exactly they are?

But I'm not calling racism here. I'm saying it could've been a factor, but it could also be that the managers in both cases were simply following corporate policy trying to ward off problems before they started. Who knows...

I just think that had she (and the cops) listened to what was being told to them not only by the two Black men, but also other customers around them who witnessed the events and especially the 3rd party who arrived on the scene as the two men were being arrested/detained, the entire situation could've been avoided. Can't necessary speak to what transpired in LA. However, that video lends itself to confirming racism for many people. As a Black man knowing my history, I can understand why these situations cut to the quick for many Black people, but I also know there's often another side to the story that has yet to be told.

 

[cuban smokes]

years ago when I lived in Dallas I worked near the Galleria & there were FOUR Starbucks within a 1 mile radius.
I was a latte junkie & Starbucks was my place to buy my poison.
I eventually left Dallas & stopped going to Starbucks but have gone to a few over the past several years.
I discovered two things:
(1) the price of a latte has basically doubled
(2) they only fill the cup half way now


Paying double to get half is not worth it so, I was boycotting Starbucks a long time ago :lol:

 

[roguenuke]

Reasonable, but most people don't think that way. They go to the restroom before placing their order, not after.



Doesn't matter how many times the 2 Black guys were asked to leave. Doesn't matter how long it took for their 3rd party to arrive. Fact is, the White guy confirmed that the two Black guys were waiting on him. The manager and the cops should have listened and drop the whole thing. Instead, they felt compelled to press forward with the...what?...detention?

I would agree with you had the 3rd party not arrived until well after the "arrest" when the two Black men were taken away there wouldn't have been a way to collaborate their story and I would have had them charged with trespassing myself, but he was right there to affirm they were not their to cause problems and that they were waiting for him before holding a business-like meeting. Now, guess what this does to Starbuck's image? Send it down the drain as a less-customer-friendly environment especially if you're trying to hold an impromptu business meeting. The optics are bad on this one...all because someone had to be the Burger Queen and have it her way. Common-sense and cooler heads could have prevailed here. Instead, Starbuck's reputation is soiled. (Bad pun, but hey...:lamo )

The fact that he did arrive right as they were being arrested and started arguing with the cops is one of the most suspicious things to me. One of the guys was on the phone while the cops were talking to them in the other video. Assuming this may have been a setup, it would have made sense for them to push it just that far, to have the guy arrive just as the cops are leading them out in cuffs, after they said they were arresting them. They gave them 3 chances to agree to leave. They had their friend's number, right? So why not call him and say "hey, these guys are racist a-holes, lets meet somewhere else", instead of refusing the cops unless they wanted to push it that far, to arrest?

 

[Removable Mind]

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.

Not only was there an apology, the men met with the CEO of Starbucks. It was reported that the meeting was productive and the men involved were satisfied with the outcome.

Also Starbucks is closing down 8000 plus stores for a day in May to have all employees to attend a class on racial bias.

And of course the person who worked at the Starbucks who called the police was fired, and rightfully so.

Starbucks has only closed its doors nationwide on one other occasion since it’s been open for business.

I think that Starbucks efforts to remedy the unjust act at least merits a goodwill display of remorse for the incident and the cost to Starbucks to close all stores nationwide for a day will run into the millions.

I think the haters are using a very poor excuse to rally for a boycott in light of what Starbucks has done.

 

[Objective Voice]

I don't know. Do Canadians 'get caught up ' in American politics? I don't even consider myself "caught up" in American politics, but being a dual citizen I figure some interest is owed. Besides its the most entertaining show in the world, who else has a two year orangutan an arm's reach from "the button". And even sitcoms aren't written this nutso.

But caught up? I couldn't care if you elected Charles Manson as long as it stays south of the 49th

Yeah, you Klondikes do. :lol: There are about five of you who are regulars here who get deeply engrossed in American politics. Doesn't really bother me until one of you gets alittle ticky about what's happening south of the Canadian border on matters that really don't affect you. Nonetheless, since you're a dual-citizen I'll grant you half credit on your opinion on all matters American. How's that? :2razz:

 

[roguenuke]

But I'm not calling racism here. I'm saying it could've been a factor, but it could also be that the managers in both cases were simply following corporate policy trying to ward off problems before they started. Who knows...

I just think that had she (and the cops) listened to what was being told to them not only by the two Black men, but also other customers around them who witnessed the events and especially the 3rd party who arrived on the scene as the two men were being arrested/detained, the entire situation could've been avoided. Can't necessary speak to what transpired in LA. However, that video lends itself to confirming racism for many people. As a Black man knowing my history, I can understand why these situations cut to the quick for many Black people, but I also know there's often another side to the story that has yet to be told.

Yes, it could have been avoided. But the ones who were the biggest factor in that were the two men refusing to leave, even after the police officers arrived and explained to them why they needed to leave.

And everyone simply ignores the fact that a pregnant white woman a few years ago was treated pretty damn near the same way in a Starbucks in Phoenix. And that reddit and yelp and so many other social media sites are littered with tales of how this policy has been in place for years, for some Starbucks (but not all), mainly in major cities that have homeless people.

I have witnessed plenty of people go to the restroom or go outside while they waited for their drinks at Starbucks. Not many have any concern that someone might steal their drink because the loss from stealing their drink before they get it is on Starbucks, not the customer.

 

[Objective Voice]

The fact that he did arrive right as they were being arrested and started arguing with the cops is one of the most suspicious things to me. One of the guys was on the phone while the cops were talking to them in the other video. Assuming this may have been a setup, it would have made sense for them to push it just that far, to have the guy arrive just as the cops are leading them out in cuffs, after they said they were arresting them. They gave them 3 chances to agree to leave. They had their friend's number, right? So why not call him and say "hey, these guys are racist a-holes, lets meet somewhere else", instead of refusing the cops unless they wanted to push it that far, to arrest?

Hence, the reason I've also said "I wonder if these two incidents are connected and they were just testing corporate policy"? You've gotten just as hung-up on the racial angle as those you accuse of being racist or race baiting. Relax...

Not everyone here is quick to dawn their White Sheets anymore than others are quick dawn their dark hoodies.

 

[roguenuke]

Hence, the reason I've also said "I wonder if these two incidents are connected and they were just testing corporate policy"?

I just simply don't feel it is right to do this, nor that the public is given enough information to truly judge this situation before the claims start being made. It would be awful for this to truly be a setup of Starbucks, and to simply have caught this person who could have been racist or just not had the best judgment and it lead to this much outrage. It mainly hurts the employees.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I am not saying that the managers' actions/refusals were warranted in either case. I have an issue with the automatic cry of "racism" without knowing any real facts about this. The Philly incident had three other black patrons inside the store when it happened (one was a youtuber filming the incident while sipping her drink). And despite what many have said, those guys did not look surprised by the reaction, but rather happy. The one was smiling. It is all just really suspicious. The other woman who posted the most known video (her friend filmed it) is a writer and owns a company that works to market nonprofits. None of this is proof. It is just all of it together. Along with the fact that I still cannot find the names of the two guys who were arrested anywhere. Why not? Why are we not being allowed to verify who exactly they are?

I think somewhere in there I stated it's over. Let it be.

So why do you continue the argument taking sides? You want their names? What are you going to do, harass them?

This is why Americans hate each other. You never let go of ****. People make mistakes every day, how we recover from them is the key, not who is right. There are 100's of opportunities to change this into a positive movement...and no one even sees them, just who was wrong...in their opinion.

 

[Objective Voice]

Yes, it could have been avoided. But the ones who were the biggest factor in that were the two men refusing to leave, even after the police officers arrived and explained to them why they needed to leave.

And everyone simply ignores the fact that a pregnant white woman a few years ago was treated pretty damn near the same way in a Starbucks in Phoenix. And that reddit and yelp and so many other social media sites are littered with tales of how this policy has been in place for years, for some Starbucks (but not all), mainly in major cities that have homeless people.

I have witnessed plenty of people go to the restroom or go outside while they waited for their drinks at Starbucks. Not many have any concern that someone might steal their drink because the loss from stealing their drink before they get it is on Starbucks, not the customer.

I don't frequent Starbucks. So, I wouldn't know...:shrug:

 

[Fearandloathing]

Yeah, you Klondikes do. :lol: There are about five of you who are regulars here who get deeply engrossed in American politics. Doesn't really bother me until one of you gets alittle ticky about what's happening south of the Canadian border on matters that really don't affect you. Nonetheless, since you're a dual-citizen I'll grant you half credit on your opinion on all matters American. How's that? :2razz:

Oh thank you sir....thank you SO much for allowing me to participate based on the stated rules of the board.

How may I EVER repay you?

"Klondikes"?

we won't be speaking any time soon, have a goop hate

 

[Objective Voice]

I just simply don't feel it is right to do this, nor that the public is given enough information to truly judge this situation before the claims start being made. It would be awful for this to truly be a setup of Starbucks, and to simply have caught this person who could have been racist or just not had the best judgment and it lead to this much outrage. It mainly hurts the employees.

This is why it's important for Starbuck's to review its corporate policy on "loitering" and make necessary changes. Otherwise, employees who jump to conclusions by judging a book by its cover instead of the cover by the book have a greater chance of doing irreparable harm to the company's image than the most vile strong arm robbery every could. The latter is seen in isolation whereas the former is seen as purposeful.

So, were these isolated incidents, mere coincidences or was there a purpose behind each store manager's actions? If in isolation/coincidence, it's a one-off situation that harms Starbuck's image for the moment; they should recover in due time. But if this was purposeful, you have to ask where did these store managers get the impression or permission that they could deny a patron access to their store who looks or acts a certain way? This comes down to policy. It would be interesting to read what their policy says concerning how to handle loitering situations.

 

[Objective Voice]

Oh thank you sir....thank you SO much for allowing me to participate based on the stated rules of the board.

How may I EVER repay you?

"Klondikes"?

we won't be speaking any time soon, have a goop hate

Don't get your feelings hurt...I was just teasing you. I do scratch my head over Canadian commentary here on all things American wondering why the fascination, I'm a long way from policing who posts here. You repay me by just staying .

 

[Kreton]

Oh thank you sir....thank you SO much for allowing me to participate based on the stated rules of the board.

How may I EVER repay you?

"Klondikes"?

we won't be speaking any time soon, have a goop hate

It took 6 years but you are finally allowed to participate. Welcome to DP.

 

[Fearandloathing]

It took 6 years but you are finally allowed to participate. Welcome to DP.

I'm still trying to figure out "Klondikes". The Klondike is a river in the Yukon, the region has about one person per 1,200 square miles and maybe one half of one per cent have ever been there.

Been called a lot of stupid **** by Americans, "white rag head", "cheese head", "commie", "beaver eater", "backward" you name it, but never Klondike.

 

[PTF]

Quoting...

" people accused the chain’s employees of racially profiling the men, and criticized police for arresting them when they refused to leave. "

Okay,here we go...
It's legal to refuse anyone wanting to use the bathroom without first ordering. The police were called and done their job without any resistance and trouble.
People who do not order and wanting to use the bathroom isn't profiling. The dudes were asked to leave and they should of. This whole thing has caused such a uproar for no reason.

 

[Kreton]

I'm still trying to figure out "Klondikes". The Klondike is a river in the Yukon, the region has about one person per 1,200 square miles and maybe one half of one per cent have ever been there.

Been called a lot of stupid **** by Americans, "white rag head", "cheese head", "commie", "beaver eater", "backward" you name it, but never Klondike.

It is best not to try to understand it. I tried and went to urban dictionary.

He is calling you an ice cream sandwich, a large black penis, or a cold hearted lesbian according to them.