• 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

Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

The policy is left to individual stores. That may be the problem. But at the same time, not every store faces the same situations, such as homeless or others who abuse their restrooms, forcing some Starbucks to weigh denying access so that they don't have to be constantly cleaning those restrooms and possibly denying someone access who will complain, especially to the media or allowing access to all and having to do a helluva lot more work (because most such places do not increase personnel for such things). It is a rock and a hard place. Some stores have simply closed off or completely removed public restrooms. The answer just isn't so simple.

[UPDATE] Toilet Terror: Starbucks Closing Its NYC Restrooms To EVERYONE: Gothamist

There needs to be some understanding by the public. I understand, at least to a point, because I've worked as a manager in retail. When we got our portable dressing rooms, someone peed in one (or allowed their pet or child to) and did not clean it up, so we had to. It was on the floor. Others were upset that we could close the regular fitting rooms early or not open them until later unlike other stores in the chain which didn't get the portable dressing rooms (we were a test store). Since we did get to close early, the store was also given less money for staff to cover those hours. Some stores in the chain have restrooms behind locked doors, which means someone had to run back there in our store at least to push the button to open the door to the restroom. Plenty of complaints on that one, especially during busy months. Not all stores in the chain have locks on their restroom doors though. (For retail stores, its more a security thing so that people aren't shoplifting while using our restrooms.) All of this goes into how much staff a store needs for any given time of day, and that means crappy working conditions for current employees at such businesses if they are thrown to the wolves that are customers who can't understand why they don't always get to use things for free.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. I like to have all the information. And it isn't over. People are talking about still boycotting this business. What if this was started because of a setup, and there was more to it? Starbucks employees appear to still be getting harassed because of this incident. If there is more information that could stop that, I'm all for finding it.
 
roguenuke said:
No. I like to have all the information. And it isn't over. People are talking about still boycotting this business. What if this was started because of a setup, and there was more to it? Starbucks employees appear to still be getting harassed because of this incident. If there is more information that could stop that, I'm all for finding it.
Click to expand...

Anything with "what if" in it needs to be jetisoned.

Trust me, I live in a country that has NEVER had a race riot. It's time to let it go.

I will not be responding to any more of your posts.
 
roguenuke said:
The policy is left to individual stores. That may be the problem. But at the same time, not every store faces the same situations, such as homeless or others who abuse their restrooms, forcing some Starbucks to weigh denying access so that they don't have to be constantly cleaning those restrooms and possibly denying someone access who will complain, especially to the media or allowing access to all and having to do a helluva lot more work (because most such places do not increase personnel for such things). It is a rock and a hard place. Some stores have simply closed off or completely removed public restrooms. The answer just isn't so simple.

[UPDATE] Toilet Terror: Starbucks Closing Its NYC Restrooms To EVERYONE: Gothamist

There needs to be some understanding by the public. I understand, at least to a point, because I've worked as a manager in retail. When we got our portable dressing rooms, someone peed in one (or allowed their pet or child to) and did not clean it up, so we had to. It was on the floor. Others were upset that we could close the regular fitting rooms early or not open them until later unlike other stores in the chain which didn't get the portable dressing rooms (we were a test store). Since we did get to close early, the store was also given less money for staff to cover those hours. Some stores in the chain have restrooms behind locked doors, which means someone had to run back there in our store at least to push the button to open the door to the restroom. Plenty of complaints on that one, especially during busy months. Not all stores in the chain have locks on their restroom doors though. (For retail stores, its more a security thing so that people aren't shoplifting while using our restrooms.) All of this goes into how much staff a store needs for any given time of day, and that means crappy working conditions for current employees at such businesses if they are thrown to the wolves that are customers who can't understand why they don't always get to use things for free.
Click to expand...

In regards to all stores not facing the same bathroom challenges, I agree. However when Starbucks allows a white person in and turns away the black person within the same 3 minutes window who asks it definitely paints a different picture. This was not a policy of customers only, it was seemingly a policy of some customers only.
 
There is a large group of the black community who are acting like spoiled 3 year olds, and another large group of others who refuse to correct their behavior. This group from the black community act as if general rules of society and civilization do not apply to them. According to the police commissioner of Philadelphia, these men were rude and belligerent. When asked to leave, they didn't. When the police arrived, they belittled the officers and again, refused to leave. Therefore they were placed under arrest. Justifiably so. They weren't arrested for being black...they were arrested for being assholes.
 
itsforthekids said:
There is a large group of the black community who are acting like spoiled 3 year olds, and another large group of others who refuse to correct their behavior. This group from the black community act as if general rules of society and civilization do not apply to them. According to the police commissioner of Philadelphia, these men were rude and belligerent. When asked to leave, they didn't. When the police arrived, they belittled the officers and again, refused to leave. Therefore they were placed under arrest. Justifiably so. They weren't arrested for being black...they were arrested for being assholes.
Click to expand...

No **** sherlock. Can you show me where anyone here accused them of being arrested for being black?
 
itsforthekids said:
There is a large group of the black community who are acting like spoiled 3 year olds, and another large group of others who refuse to correct their behavior. This group from the black community act as if general rules of society and civilization do not apply to them. According to the police commissioner of Philadelphia, these men were rude and belligerent. When asked to leave, they didn't. When the police arrived, they belittled the officers and again, refused to leave. Therefore they were placed under arrest. Justifiably so. They weren't arrested for being black...they were arrested for being assholes.
Click to expand...

americanwoman said:
No **** sherlock. Can you show me where anyone here accused them of being arrested for being black?
Click to expand...

An update:

Black men were arrested within 2 minutes of arriving at Philadelphia Starbucks | WQAD.com

Ridiculous that this even happened.
 
leekohler2 said:
An update:

Black men were arrested within 2 minutes of arriving at Philadelphia Starbucks | WQAD.com

Ridiculous that this even happened.
Click to expand...

Can't possibly be true since the police were there for at least 3 minutes prior to when they actually told them they were arresting them, after asking them to leave 3 times. It would take time for the police to get there after called. There is no way that they were arrested within 2 minutes of entering. The other video has a running time on it, and it is at least 8 minutes long in total, and they don't begin to get cuffed until halfway through.
 
roguenuke said:
Can't possibly be true since the police were there for at least 3 minutes prior to when they actually told them they were arresting them, after asking them to leave 3 times. It would take time for the police to get there after called. There is no way that they were arrested within 2 minutes of entering. The other video has a running time on it, and it is at least 8 minutes long in total, and they don't begin to get cuffed until halfway through.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? There's a lot more to the situation.
 
leekohler2 said:
Did you read the article? There's a lot more to the situation.
Click to expand...

This sentence is a lie. It did not happen.

"The two black men arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks last week were handcuffed within 2 minutes of entering the store." They claim that the barista called the cops within 2 minutes of them entering the store. But we don't know what happened. We only know what they are saying.
 
roguenuke said:
This sentence is a lie. It did not happen.

"The two black men arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks last week were handcuffed within 2 minutes of entering the store." They claim that the barista called the cops within 2 minutes of them entering the store. But we don't know what happened. We only know what they are saying.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm to try this again- read the rest of the article for additional info other than the 2 minute claim. Or don't. I don't know why I bother in here anyway.
 
roguenuke said:
This sentence is a lie. It did not happen.

"The two black men arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks last week were handcuffed within 2 minutes of entering the store." They claim that the barista called the cops within 2 minutes of them entering the store. But we don't know what happened. We only know what they are saying.
Click to expand...

The article keeps calling them business men and about what a groundbreaking moment this was in their lives then quotes the guy saying something like 'this isnt gonna happen' indicating leaving the store.
 
leekohler2 said:
OK, I'm to try this again- read the rest of the article for additional info other than the 2 minute claim. Or don't. I don't know why I bother in here anyway.
Click to expand...

The problem you dont get is that if the reporter is that big a liar or that inept at facts... along with writing an obviously slanted and emotionally driven piece... who canor should trust the rest of the article?

I am not saying a real wrong was done here. I am saying this article does not prove a real wrong was done here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom