OngoingFreedom
Regular Member
I understand and respect Starbucks' choices in this case. They respect the law but don't want to be a battleground.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Is it time to fine a new coffee place? Starbucks caves...
- Thread starter anmut
- Start date
JustaShooter
Regular Member
No, really, it is pretty clear that you don't get it. But I also recognize from the content of your other posts that it is unlikely that either I or anyone else is going to be able to help you to understand, and so be it.
davidmcbeth
Banned
starbucks is a member of the public community ... and I get it just fine ... you want to give them a pass for some reason.
They refused to serve people who carry. Period. You can sit their and philosophize about it all you want .. facts is facts.
If you were subjected to CT's PA13-3 I'm sure you would have a different opinion.
b0neZ
Regular Member
They didn't just refuse to serve people who carry. They refused to serve pro 2A, Anti's, as well as people who couldn't be bothered to give a rats patoot either way.
For one day.
At one location.
Because one side or the other chose to go against the expressed wishes of the company, which was to leave them out of the fight.
They are claiming the role of Switzerland, as it were, in this situation.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
:lol:
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
Starbucks refused service to pro 2A supporters, And
anti 2A detractors, both!
Starbucks also refused service to ALL the protected classes of special people
that fall under the umbrella of the "Civil rights act of 1964"!
Starbucks refused service to pro 2A supporters, And
anti 2A detractors, both!
Starbucks also refused service to ALL the protected classes of special people
that fall under the umbrella of the "Civil rights act of 1964"!
JamesCanby
Activist Member
No, you don't get it at all.
ONE Starbucks store, in a highly sensitized and politicized location, opted out of being the locus for a philosophical confrontation.
By closing, they served NO ONE -- not the pro-firearms community, the anti-firearms community, nor any member of any of the protected classes whose civil rights are *actually* protected by federal and state law.
If I was the owner of that location, I might not have made the same decision -- after all, staying open might have increased my sales of expensive coffee on that day, but I believe the owner probably made the right decision, ceteris paribus.
davidmcbeth
Banned
You are a broken record - if you want to say you side with the antis, just say so.
DocWalker
Regular Member
Didn't Switzerland help hide money stolen by the Germans during WW2. Yea Switzerland claimed they were not taking any sides, clearly this wasn't true.
b0neZ
Regular Member
Yes, they did stash money for the Germans in WW2.
I used that reference in the context of not actively engaging either side.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Your inability to comprehend clearly written communications and proclivity to assign opposite motives to clearly written statements make you unworthy of further debate.
Moving on.
davidmcbeth
Banned
You don't understand this subject very well ... you best move on
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Seriously David, I pwnd this debate already, and you apparently failed to grok a single one of my points. Now JamesCanby pwned it again, and you're still repeating claims and arguments which have been put to bed.
At this point it's just comical.
:lol:
Law abider
Regular Member
James, the answer here is to open your own coffee shop that will serve ONLY Ocers/CCers.
Let's all calm down and sing..."Oh coffee shop oh coffee shop please help me find one... Oh... wh..ere is that coffee shop that will serve me who has a gun.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I find it comical that supposedly pro-gun folks are not willing to push for our gun rights to be seen as civil rights ..
and sad.
What points? You seem to think that businesses who open up their stores to the public still can act like natural persons in the maintenance of their respective properties. Hello, McFly ! Homey don't play dat. I'm looking at a bigger picture here and you want to focus on insignificant details.
Your "anti rating" is 50 out of 100. That's right, I just rated you. 50 = supports gun rights but only to the point where courts have already ruled on them ~ new ideas or legal arguments are rejected in favor of anti-thinking.
If were up to you, we would have gotten no Heller decision. You would have just bought the tripe that the antis were feeding the people at that time ... as you are today.
As for Starbucks, you should chk out who they give $$$ to -- antis. I know, you don't want to know the truth.
If you think that Starbuck's actions were pro-2nd you are sadly mistaken .... and there are no neutrals.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
lol, david just rated me 50% "anti".
:lol:
Way to just wad all your credibility (what remained of it, anyway) and flush it down the toilet in one fell swoop.
You did say one thing I want to respond to meaningfully: you seem to think taking a giant dump all over Starbucks is a good way to "push our civil rights". It is not. You want to push your civil rights? Do it in a way that doesn't violate others'. Simple, David, simple.
I sincerely hope that one day you own a business open to the public, and NAMBLA decides to stage daily rallies inside. (Although I do also hope they stop once you wise up and realize the importance of non-RKBA rights. I would never wish aggression on another.) :lol:
:lol:
Way to just wad all your credibility (what remained of it, anyway) and flush it down the toilet in one fell swoop.
You did say one thing I want to respond to meaningfully: you seem to think taking a giant dump all over Starbucks is a good way to "push our civil rights". It is not. You want to push your civil rights? Do it in a way that doesn't violate others'. Simple, David, simple.
I sincerely hope that one day you own a business open to the public, and NAMBLA decides to stage daily rallies inside. (Although I do also hope they stop once you wise up and realize the importance of non-RKBA rights. I would never wish aggression on another.) :lol:
Last edited:
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Not sure I understand your point, LA. I already *know* where there are many coffee shops that serve those who carry firearms, and most all of them are Starbucks locations. If I *did* open a coffee shop, why would I arbitrarily limit my clientele to just firearm carriers, thus limiting my revenue and profit potential? No, I would gladly serve all who I permitted to enter my property, legally armed or not carrying.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Marshaul, I suspect that the closest that poster will come to opening his own business will be to play Diner Dash on his computer... He seems to think that the rights he values are the only ones worth fighting for and that no one else has any rights except for the ones in which he believes. One day he may come face to face with reality, but I'm not confident that he will recognize it when he does.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Hahahaha -- your post amuses me as it contains so many wrong assumptions
When someone tries to abrogate my rights, then yes, my rights take precedence to me ... don't you stand up for your rights?
I don't play to the tune of the GOP ... "ya gotta be sensitive to people who might be a-scared of guns" ooooooooo
I've had people ask me "don't do that, it's upsetting my kids" and I reply "well, go drown them .. there's a small pond over there"
Law abider
Regular Member
I was just trying to make a point that you could discriminate just as that Starbucks did. But on the flip side of this issue businesses are forced to discriminate by government: No smoking laws, can't refuse to serve people just because they are homosexuals, transgendered a born again Christian etc... They have the right to sue you, and you could go down the line with government sponsored discrimination that takes away your right as a owner of a private business that serves the public. Dave feels that since they serve the public, they should serve Ocers and CCers just like they serve the rest of the public. It is private property serving the public vs private property.. your home, your castle, that doesn't serve the public. He feels that way, and so do I. So what? Now I am going to write an editor letter in the paper on this issue regarding my local grocery store and why I don't spend most of my allotted grocery money there.