Re: Starbucks or "Slapping an Ally in the Face"

[jakeman]

To add to the above.

It appears it was a "slap in the face". Maybe some consideration is due. I think exercising your rights is different than organizing a "demonstration".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/1...but-not-banned-from-stores/?intcmp=latestnews

Starbucks says guns are no longer welcome in its cafes, though it is stopping short of an outright ban on firearms.

The fine line that the retailer is walking to address the concerns of both gun rights and gun control advocates reflects how heated the issue has become, particularly in light of recent mass shootings.

Most states allow people to openly carry licensed guns in some way and many companies do not have laws banning firearms in their stores. But Starbucks has become a target for gun control advocates, in part because of its liberal-leaning corporate image. In turn, gun rights advocates have been galvanized by the company's decision to defer to local laws.

In an interview, CEO Howard Schultz said the decision to ask customers to stop bringing guns into stores came as a result of the growing frequency of "Starbucks Appreciation Days," in which gun rights advocates turned up at Starbucks cafes with firearms.

Schultz said the events mischaracterized the company's stance on the issue and the demonstrations "have made our customers uncomfortable."

Schultz hopes people will honor the request not to bring in guns but says the company will nevertheless serve those who do.

"We will not ask you to leave," he said.

The Seattle-based company plans to buy ad space in major national newspapers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and USA Today on Thursday to run an open letter from Schultz explaining the decision. The letter points to recent activities by both gun rights and gun control advocates at its stores, saying that it has been "thrust unwillingly" into the middle of the national debate over firearms.

As for the "Starbucks Appreciation Days" being staged by gun rights advocates, it stresses: "To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores."

But the letter notes that Starbucks is standing by its position that the matter should ultimately be left to lawmakers. Schultz also said he doesn't want to put workers in the position of having to confront armed customers by banning guns.

The AP was provided a picture of a memo to Starbucks employees on Tuesday. Partners are instructed not to confront customers or ask them to leave solely for carrying a weapon.

Several companies do not allow firearms in their stores, however, apparently with little trouble. Representatives for Peet's Coffee & Tea and Whole Foods, for example, said there haven't been any problems with enforcing their gun bans.

Shannon Watts, founder of the gun reform group Moms Demand Action, noted that Starbucks has taken strong stances on other issues. Earlier this year, for example, the company banned smoking within 25 feet of its stores, wherever its leases allowed. The idea was to extend its no-smoking policy to the outdoor seating areas.

"There's a big difference in the connotation of someone holding a gun and someone holding a cigarette," Schultz said.

Moms Demand Action, which was formed the day after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, has been organizing "Skip Starbucks Saturdays" to urge the coffee company to ban guns at its stores. Participants take photos of themselves at competitors such as Peet's that do not allow guns and post them online.

In the meantime, Starbucks has become a symbol for advocates of gun rights. A website now even sells products bearing an altered version of the Starbucks logo, with the siren holding up a gun in each hand with the words "I Love Guns & Coffee."

 

[jakeman]

I'm glad you got your coffee and I sincerely hope that your magic rabbits feet continue to ward away the evil spirits!

I do want to say that it would be wise not to confuse a company's desire not to get involved on a political issue as them supporting one side or another. They are abiding by the laws that exist in the locales of their businesses. Nothing more. Nothing less.


Ek

They're still abiding by the laws, and apparently guns aren't banned, "yet", but we're no longer "welcome".

Regardless of your stance, there is something to be learned here, if you're capable of learning.

 

[shooterdave]

So im confused... Strong OC proponents are pissed because SBUX has decided to back away from the far right to a more politically-neutral position right? Istn that their right? Arent they in business to make money? If i read the artilce correctly, I believe that they, mgmt of SBUX, feel they have been inadvertantly thrown into the OC debate. If i remember correctly, the reason they initially decided to not deny OC'ers the right to carry in their cafes was to not choose a side that would alienate a specific group of customers. Well, when OC'ers have held rallys at SBUX stores that cause turmoil and affect their bottom line they are doing the opposite of what SBUX mgmt was trying to do... Negatively affecting those who are not their opponents...

I am a firearms instructor and teach the Okla. SDA course. I do not choose to open carry for many reasons. If I did, I wouldnt allow a companies decision to "stay out it" to keep me from buying their product. If they were ardently against it, Maybe.

To those who Open Carry and are staunch supporters I say this... Don't condemn a company who has been so supportive on this issue because they are protecting their bottom line. After all, there livelyhood is selling coffee, not politics.

 

[thefenux]

Here's the message from the horse's "mouth": http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz/1268

No more Starbucks for me.

 

[cmhbob]

Why are people giving Starbucks grief about this? They did exactly many pro-gun people warned they would do. Starbucks asked not to be dragged into the middle of a controversy that really didn't involve them. We did it anyway, and now we're reaping what we sowed.

ETA:

Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called "Starbucks Appreciation Days" that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of "open carry." To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Why are people giving Starbucks grief about this? They did exactly many pro-gun people warned they would do. Starbucks asked not to be dragged into the middle of a controversy that really didn't involve them. We did it anyway, and now we're reaping what we sowed.

ETA:

This.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[chuter]

Why are people giving Starbucks grief about this? They did exactly many pro-gun people warned they would do. Starbucks asked not to be dragged into the middle of a controversy that really didn't involve them. We did it anyway, and now we're reaping what we sowed.

+1, all the "it's my right by God" showboating really worked out well. Thanks for alienating a huge corporation and giving a "victory" to the other side.

 

[cmhbob]

A nice piece at Examiner.com by David Codrea. http://www.examiner.com/article/cnn-s-real-reporting-rewrites-starbucks-gun-policy-history

Here's the important paragraph:

Gun rights activists would do well now to stop using Starbucks stores as battlegrounds, because, even in light of the company’s statement, a victory has been won and held -- they can still carry if they choose. There’s no percentage in pressing further to demand more from someone unwilling to give it, which could backfire and result in lost ground. Continue carrying there but stop trying to force corporate to formally agree and everybody wins. Besides, the essential core of true tolerance, which Schultz has actually shown here, is to not infringe on the free choices of others.

 

[jakeman]

I swear, I don't get it.

Some people just can't understand simple English.

There truly are only 2 kinds of people in this world; those that get it, and those that don't. You don't have to explain things like this to those that get it, and no amount of explaining will ever sink in to those that don't.

 

[KOPBET]

Starbucks was never an "ally".