Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Racial tolerance [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
I've been to Starbucks. I have seen people sitting there for hours on their computers. White people. They don't have any drinks.

Not once have I seen someone asked to buy something. Not once have any of them been asked to leave. Not once have Police been called.

I've seen it. I bet most people on here have seen it.

The one closest to my house does ask people to order. I have never seen cops called, with the exception for sleeping homeless people, but its so packed they do ask people to order. And yes, I see people there without drinks but usually they have ordered and have been there for so long their drink is finished. This is mostly students.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is merely an op-ed, but, the author raises some good points.


Of course it is claimed that white people loiter in Starbucks all the time without being asked to leave. This must prove that these men were singled out for their race. Perhaps it does. But if the men were arrested for "being black in Starbucks," you'd think there must be many similar stories from that same Starbucks location. Presumably, the Starbucks in Philadelphia has hundreds of black patrons come in and out every single week. If the manager is so uncontrollably racist that she actually called the cops on two black men simply because they are black, why didn't she do the same with any of the hundreds or thousands of other black customers she's seen in the store?


And here's another question: Has this manager ever done the same to white people? She says she has enforced the loitering rule plenty of times in the past. Were they always black people? If she has done exactly the same to people of her own race, wouldn't that disprove racism with absolute certainty? Are we sure that the loitering policy at the Starbucks in Philadelphia was enforced based on skin color? How are we sure? Does someone have proof?

https://www.dailywire.com/...starbucks-matt-walsh

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Uncle Arqyle wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
It's a fucking coffee shop. Starbucks actually markets itself as a meeting place for business, social gatherings, etc. Kicking people out for loitering??

It was a business meeting between professionals. I doubt the guys were waiting long, but who knows.


Huh, if its a meeting place for professionals Starbucks should consider selling coffee and snacks. They could make a business out of it and go public.


That's what Panera is for.


No, they make you order shit. You don't get to just sit there quietly conducting your meeting without making a purchase.

You're not doing it right.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
JSA wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Uncle Arqyle wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
It's a fucking coffee shop. Starbucks actually markets itself as a meeting place for business, social gatherings, etc. Kicking people out for loitering??

It was a business meeting between professionals. I doubt the guys were waiting long, but who knows.


Huh, if its a meeting place for professionals Starbucks should consider selling coffee and snacks. They could make a business out of it and go public.


That's what Panera is for.


No, they make you order shit. You don't get to just sit there quietly conducting your meeting without making a purchase.


You're not doing it right.

No, I just don't want to be arrested.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [BCtriguy1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BCtriguy1 wrote:
Two black guys were waiting in a Starbucks for a friend to arrive.

Is that all they were doing? It's a sincere question. The first report I heard (which until today was the last report I heard) was that the guys or one of them had asked to use the bathroom, but he/they were refused because the bathroom is reserved for paying customers. That's literally all I heard because the story then skipped to the part where the guys were arrested.

But if that is true then what was the guy's (were the guys') reaction and behavior in the store that caused the manager to call the cops? Sounds like the customer-Starbucks relationship started out badly in this case and it's reasonable to suspect that the guy/guys reacted poorly to being refused access to the bathroom. Were they causing a scene?

Of course this begs the question of why they were refused access to the bathroom (i.e., were non-paying other races granted access?) but that's the next step.

So maybe calling the cops was appropriate and the real question isn't about Starbucks but, rather, is about the Philadelphia law enforcement's arrest itself. (It's like the United Airlines thing: United didn't drag that dude off the plane; rather, it was local law enforcement who did.)

War is god
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Crank wrote:
BCtriguy1 wrote:
Two black guys were waiting in a Starbucks for a friend to arrive.


Is that all they were doing? It's a sincere question. The first report I heard (which until today was the last report I heard) was that the guys or one of them had asked to use the bathroom, but he/they were refused because the bathroom is reserved for paying customers. That's literally all I heard because the story then skipped to the part where the guys were arrested.

But if that is true then what was the guy's (were the guys') reaction and behavior in the store that caused the manager to call the cops? Sounds like the customer-Starbucks relationship started out badly in this case and it's reasonable to suspect that the guy/guys reacted poorly to being refused access to the bathroom. Were they causing a scene?

Of course this begs the question of why they were refused access to the bathroom (i.e., were non-paying other races granted access?) but that's the next step.

So maybe calling the cops was appropriate and the real question isn't about Starbucks but, rather, is about the Philadelphia law enforcement's arrest itself. (It's like the United Airlines thing: United didn't drag that dude off the plane; rather, it was local law enforcement who did.)

I believe you are confusing two cases. One involved the two men in Philly. A second involved a black man in LA who was denied use of the bathroom. From all accounts, the two guys in Philly were just sitting waiting for a friend to arrive. The guy in LA became agitated and loud, claiming a white guy was permitted to use the bathroom without buying anything.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [BCtriguy1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BCtriguy1 wrote:

pretty disgusting behavior from the store manager, and the cops.

Maybe this had nothing to do with race, maybe the exact same thing would have happened if these people had been white. But I'm sure it would have been much less newsworthy if it had been.

2x Deca-Ironman World Cup (10 Ironmans in 10 days), 2x Quintuple Ironman World Cup (5 Ironmans in 5 days), Ultraman, Ultra Marathoner, and I once did an Ironman.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Simple question to the capitulating Starbucks Ceo.- Mr. Kevin Johnson Is your new policy going to be... That anyone can hang out in your stores and use your restrooms and are no longer required to be a paying customer? Basically making Starbucks like a public park with wi-fi.

If the CEO believes this is the right thing to do, good luck with all the homeless, and other ne' er-do-wells that will take over Starbucks. If he is thinking maybe this might not be a good policy (like most all businesses think), I would suggest he apologizes to the manager who enforced his sensible rules and give her a fat raise for all the abuse she has gotten.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Haha! The white guilt is running deep at Starbucks right now, time to take advantage! I wonder if I could claim 'I identify as a black man or woman' and pull this caper off?


Last edited by: getcereal: Apr 18, 18 13:36
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [getcereal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.

Pretty subjective. What is a reasonable time and what if they also want to use the bathroom?
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [getcereal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is waiting with some coffee in your hand out of the question? If I was a paying customer and wanted a place to sit and saw people just chilling at a table id be pretty upset.

2x Deca-Ironman World Cup (10 Ironmans in 10 days), 2x Quintuple Ironman World Cup (5 Ironmans in 5 days), Ultraman, Ultra Marathoner, and I once did an Ironman.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
I believe you are confusing two cases. One involved the two men in Philly. A second involved a black man in LA who was denied use of the bathroom. From all accounts, the two guys in Philly were just sitting waiting for a friend to arrive. The guy in LA became agitated and loud, claiming a white guy was permitted to use the bathroom without buying anything.

Snopes (yuck, but it's what I've got at the moment) says they asked to use the bathroom and were refused because they hadn't bought anything yet. The guys sat down quietly and wouldn't leave despite being asked to do so three times. Sounds like it became a battle of wills and the employee upped the ante after it became clear to him/her that the guys weren't going to order anything (probably out of spite, which is perfectly reasonable). In our current political climate of hand wringing and appearance over substance and truth, Starbucks lost and now the CEO has to prostrate himself as the sacrificial goat of the week.

So I'm sure there was more going on than simply, "real estate agents arrested while waiting for a friend." Stuff like this doesn't happen in a vacuum and nobody is ever completely innocent except young kids.* Were these guys known to the employee as repeat freeloaders who don't order anything despite holding multiple meetings at that particular store? In such a case, Starbucks is a retail store, not a free coworking space. Or, if the guys were sitting there seething and having lost their intent to order something (which is a reasonable reaction to being refused) then why didn't they wait for their friend outside rather than monopolizing a table? In that case, they were just trying to prove a point and if that's the case then yes, they were trespassing.

*My line of work has jaded me beyond recovery. I don't believe a single word anyone says, particularly when there's gain to be made by posturing and misrepresentation of objective facts.

War is god
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.

I agree wholeheartedly.

War is god
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [chuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chuy wrote:
Is waiting with some coffee in your hand out of the question? If I was a paying customer and wanted a place to sit and saw people just chilling at a table id be pretty upset.

Agreed.

War is god
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [getcereal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
getcereal wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.

Pretty subjective. What is a reasonable time and what if they also want to use the bathroom?

of course it's subjective. Every situation is different in some way. The use of reasonableness is used all the time in law. No reason a Starbucks manager can't do the same.

If they want to use the bathroom while they wait for a friend, fine, as long as you think their story is reasonable and they haven't waited an unreasonable time without buying anything. If the same person comes in every day to use the bathroom and never buys anything, that's unreasonable.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
getcereal wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.


Pretty subjective. What is a reasonable time and what if they also want to use the bathroom?


of course it's subjective. Every situation is different in some way. The use of reasonableness is used all the time in law. No reason a Starbucks manager can't do the same.

If they want to use the bathroom while they wait for a friend, fine, as long as you think their story is reasonable and they haven't waited an unreasonable time without buying anything. If the same person comes in every day to use the bathroom and never buys anything, that's unreasonable.

And one would assume the police would have sorted whether this was reasonable and a waste of their time or justified.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Uncle Arqyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Uncle Arqyle wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
getcereal wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.


Pretty subjective. What is a reasonable time and what if they also want to use the bathroom?


of course it's subjective. Every situation is different in some way. The use of reasonableness is used all the time in law. No reason a Starbucks manager can't do the same.

If they want to use the bathroom while they wait for a friend, fine, as long as you think their story is reasonable and they haven't waited an unreasonable time without buying anything. If the same person comes in every day to use the bathroom and never buys anything, that's unreasonable.

And one would assume the police would have sorted whether this was reasonable and a waste of their time or justified.

my understanding is once the police are called for a trespasser, it isn't up to their discretion, although they should use reasonable judgement too.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
getcereal wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.


Pretty subjective. What is a reasonable time and what if they also want to use the bathroom?


of course it's subjective. Every situation is different in some way. The use of reasonableness is used all the time in law. No reason a Starbucks manager can't do the same.

If they want to use the bathroom while they wait for a friend, fine, as long as you think their story is reasonable and they haven't waited an unreasonable time without buying anything. If the same person comes in every day to use the bathroom and never buys anything, that's unreasonable.


Well in this case, the supervisor used her professional/reasonable judgement) followed the rules and was fired for it. The two who in my opinion were being very unreasonable!
From what I heard they-
Wanted to use the rest room, but were told 'no the restrooms are paying customers'. - Seems reasonable, they could of easily bought a cup of coffee for the privilege.

Then they sat down at a table, and once again were told the tables are for paying customers, - Makes sense

They stayed there for 15 mins and then police arrived.- That is a long time to hold up a valuable table that paying customers can't use.

The police asked them 3 times to leave, they refused, - Those are combative stubborn people.

They were then arrested, - What choice did the cops have, should they just let assholes take over where ever they feel.

Later to be released with no charges pressed by Starbucks

Now the women who made the her professional/subjective decisions no longer has a job.
.
Last edited by: getcereal: Apr 18, 18 14:54
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
BLeP wrote:
The point is... white people do this all the time. And they never have the cops called on them.


Not sure what happened to the manager, I thought I read fired somewhere?

Anyway, if she was simply following company policy and had asked whites, etc. just hanging out there to leave, she'll sue the beejesus out of Starbucks and win.


No she won't. She was an at-will employee per PA law. Starbucks is free to fire her for any reason or no reason at all, unless it was an illegal reason and this would not be an illegal reason.

But if she followed Starbucks policy and was sacrificed for it... then you're saying she has no case for wrongful termination?

War is god
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Crank wrote:
JSA wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
BLeP wrote:
The point is... white people do this all the time. And they never have the cops called on them.


Not sure what happened to the manager, I thought I read fired somewhere?

Anyway, if she was simply following company policy and had asked whites, etc. just hanging out there to leave, she'll sue the beejesus out of Starbucks and win.


No she won't. She was an at-will employee per PA law. Starbucks is free to fire her for any reason or no reason at all, unless it was an illegal reason and this would not be an illegal reason.


But if she followed Starbucks policy and was sacrificed for it... then you're saying she has no case for wrongful termination?

And then an attempt to publicly blame/shame her by Schultz who stated she showed her unconscious bias.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Crank wrote:
JSA wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
BLeP wrote:
The point is... white people do this all the time. And they never have the cops called on them.


Not sure what happened to the manager, I thought I read fired somewhere?

Anyway, if she was simply following company policy and had asked whites, etc. just hanging out there to leave, she'll sue the beejesus out of Starbucks and win.


No she won't. She was an at-will employee per PA law. Starbucks is free to fire her for any reason or no reason at all, unless it was an illegal reason and this would not be an illegal reason.


But if she followed Starbucks policy and was sacrificed for it... then you're saying she has no case for wrongful termination?

Not in a state like PA that follows the "at-will employment" doctrine. I can fire you for any reason that is not illegal. I can fire you for being a bad employee. I can fire you for being too good. I can fire you because you are a Bears fan. I can fire you for not paying homage to the Packers. I can fire you for failing to follow work rules and for strictly adhering to work rules.

I just cannot fire you for things like: (1) your protected class; (2) reporting harassment/discrimination; (3) opposing harassment/discrimination; (4) exercising your rights under statutes like the FMLA; etc.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [Crank] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Crank wrote:
JSA wrote:
I believe you are confusing two cases. One involved the two men in Philly. A second involved a black man in LA who was denied use of the bathroom. From all accounts, the two guys in Philly were just sitting waiting for a friend to arrive. The guy in LA became agitated and loud, claiming a white guy was permitted to use the bathroom without buying anything.


Snopes (yuck, but it's what I've got at the moment) says they asked to use the bathroom and were refused because they hadn't bought anything yet. The guys sat down quietly and wouldn't leave despite being asked to do so three times. Sounds like it became a battle of wills and the employee upped the ante after it became clear to him/her that the guys weren't going to order anything (probably out of spite, which is perfectly reasonable). In our current political climate of hand wringing and appearance over substance and truth, Starbucks lost and now the CEO has to prostrate himself as the sacrificial goat of the week.

So I'm sure there was more going on than simply, "real estate agents arrested while waiting for a friend." Stuff like this doesn't happen in a vacuum and nobody is ever completely innocent except young kids.* Were these guys known to the employee as repeat freeloaders who don't order anything despite holding multiple meetings at that particular store? In such a case, Starbucks is a retail store, not a free coworking space. Or, if the guys were sitting there seething and having lost their intent to order something (which is a reasonable reaction to being refused) then why didn't they wait for their friend outside rather than monopolizing a table? In that case, they were just trying to prove a point and if that's the case then yes, they were trespassing.

*My line of work has jaded me beyond recovery. I don't believe a single word anyone says, particularly when there's gain to be made by posturing and misrepresentation of objective facts.

I was not aware of that. Thank you for the additional information. And, I completely agree with your position. We never get the entire story.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [getcereal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
getcereal wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
getcereal wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. So if someone says they're waiting for a friend then let them wait a reasonable time. If no friend arrives and they refuse to buy any products, then ask them to leave. Call police as a last resort. Apply policies uniformly.


Pretty subjective. What is a reasonable time and what if they also want to use the bathroom?


of course it's subjective. Every situation is different in some way. The use of reasonableness is used all the time in law. No reason a Starbucks manager can't do the same.

If they want to use the bathroom while they wait for a friend, fine, as long as you think their story is reasonable and they haven't waited an unreasonable time without buying anything. If the same person comes in every day to use the bathroom and never buys anything, that's unreasonable.


Well in this case, the supervisor used her professional/reasonable judgement) followed the rules and was fired for it. The two who in my opinion were being very unreasonable!
From what I heard they-
Wanted to use the rest room, but were told 'no the restrooms are paying customers'. - Seems reasonable, they could of easily bought a cup of coffee for the privilege.

Then they sat down at a table, and once again were told the tables are for paying customers, - Makes sense

They stayed there for 15 mins and then police arrived.- That is a long time to hold up a valuable table that paying customers can't use.

The police asked them 3 times to leave, they refused, - Those are combative stubborn people.

They were then arrested, - What choice did the cops have, should they just let assholes take over where ever they feel.

Later to be released with no charges pressed by Starbucks

Now the women who made the her professional/subjective decisions no longer has a job.
.

Did the guys ever once say "we are just waiting for a friend, we want to buy him a coffee and will order then"?

Starbucks' goal is to create a "third place" experience, meaning, a place aside from your home or place of work you go to meet friends, read, relax, whatever. That's in their own words, they are selling this "third place" experience, not coffee. If I went in to a Starbucks and was harrassed for taking too long to order something I'd be pretty pissed. Especially if I explained that I was waiting for other members of my party to arrive.

Long Chile was a silly place.
Quote Reply
Re: Racial tolerance [chuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chuy wrote:
Is waiting with some coffee in your hand out of the question? If I was a paying customer and wanted a place to sit and saw people just chilling at a table id be pretty upset.

You’ve obviously never been to a Starbucks. This is the case any time I am there. Seats all taken by people who maybe ordered one drink 3 hours ago.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply

Prev Next