Starbucks to Close 8,000 U.S. Stores for Racial-Bias Training After Arrests

[Gerald]

Starbucks said on Tuesday that it would close its more than 8,000 stores in the United States for one day to conduct anti-bias training after two African-American men were arrested at one of its stores last week, prompting outrage.

Starbucks will close the stores May 29 to offer the training to 175,000 employees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/b...cial-bias.html

Well,it could be a top of a iceberg.


Note: APRIL 17, 2018

[GoldenRivet]

So tell me what you think:

OPTION A:

the two men enter a private place of business, they order nothing, and do not engage in commerce of any kind with said business.

They proceed to sit at a table for nearly an hour just occupying space and ask to use the restroom

as they are loitering, the men are asked to leave. They refuse. things get heated and the police are summoned. it makes headlines.

OPTION B:

Two black men (in a city which is occupied predominately by blacks) walk into a private place of business, they order nothing, do not engage in commerce of any kind with said business.

They proceed to sit at a table for nearly an hour just occupying space and ask to use the restroom

as they are loitering, the men are asked to leave, solely on the basis that clearly this is a whites only establishment that dont take kindly to no black folk hangin round our coffee hut.




you do the math.

you think my lilly white irish descendant ass would be allowed to just go walk into a starbucks and just sit there for an hour or two and ask to take a crap without someone being like "hey wait a minute... are you here to buy something or what?"???

no, i wouldnt

where i come from thats called loitering, and now out of an abundance of caution starbucks (of which i am not a customer) is going to close its stores for a day to do what exactly? say that loitering is now allowed? say that anyone who goes to a starbucks to just sit around and buy nothing is just cool now?

i dont get it honestly.

look... the real news here, and im just being honest... because i just got to experience a month of living in the cesspool hell hole that is Philadelphia... but the real headline front page six oclock national news here...

is that these men wanted to crap indoors.

literally the only place on earth (so far) where i had to wait until a man could finish taking a piss so i could take a photograph of the city without him - urinating - in broad day light - in my photo.

[Eichhörnchen]

I guess that the law regarding trespass is different in the US; here in the UK trespass is a civil matter and I believe that the police cannot intervene unless a criminal act is also being committed.

To be honest, I wouldn't want anyone routinely traipsing through my business premises just to use the crapper without buying something, unless they could honestly declare a medical need. But if they asked nicely beforehand, as I believe these gents did, then that might also make a difference to my attitude

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen

I guess that the law regarding trespass is different in the US; here in the UK trespass is a civil matter and I believe that the police cannot intervene unless a criminal act is also being committed.

Loitering is when you occupy a place of business and are not involved in business activities there. its basic definition is to "stand or wait about idly with no apparent purpose." many cities in the US have loitering laws which state quite specifically that you cannot simply occupy a place for the sake of occupying it. generally this is in reference to a place of business, for example, i cannot just go sit at McDonalds for a length of time and flip through facebook on my iPhone. it is totally different if i go to McDonalds, order a Big Mac, and sit flipping through facebook on my iPhone while i nibble at my food.

I have not been able to ascertain what the charges filed against the men were... because there were none pressed by starbucks.

why were they lead out by authorities? because when you loiter, that is generally the result. You are asked to make a purchase, or leave the store, shop, shoppe, delicatessen, etc. if you refuse, then you can be removed from the location by the authorities.

By accounts, the men occupied the starbucks for a matter of at least one hour but not more than two. they claimed they were "waiting for a friend"

what i find interesting is, the "friend" arrived the minute the handcuffs came out.

was it a setup of some kind? who knows?

the real question is... what precedent gets set now?

Lets say i own a coffee shop, or sandwich shop or whatever, and two black men walk in, order nothing, and just camp at one of my tables for 2 hours.

what rights have i at this point?

am i a racist klansman if i ask them to make a purchase or vacate the store?

if they refuse, and i summon the police, does my store end up on national news?

do i come to work in the morning greeted by a large crowd of protesters bent on "making sure i don't earn a dime today."

EDIT: a large part of the fuss is that the men claimed (as did the protestors) that someone who hadnt purchased any product was allowed to use the bathroom... however he had only just arrived, and it is not known whether he intended to do business with starbucks after doing business with their toilet. The men however had occupied the store for an hour or two, making it clear they had no intention of making a purchase. pretty open and shut if you ask me

[em2nought]

We should divide the country up peacefully. If the left wants shops full of people not ordering anything and leaving giant turds in their crappers let them have it.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by em2nought

We should divide the country up peacefully. If the left wants shops full of people not ordering anything and leaving giant turds in their crappers let them have it.

several years ago, i believe it was a Russian geopolitical specialist who predicted this to be the ultimate Fate of America as a nation.

A nation still bound together by common bonds, still allied, but torn into regions of political ideology, no real central federal government, but instead, each region comprised of a hand full of states having a federal government all its own.

it is the theory of one man.

but every day it seems more plausible.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen

I guess that the law regarding trespass is different in the US; here in the UK trespass is a civil matter and I believe that the police cannot intervene unless a criminal act is also being committed.

Quite correct but should an officer feel inclined the above can usually be circumvented by claiming an intervention to prevent a breach of the peace being committed.

[Eichhörnchen]

Yes... that makes good sense... and I expect would apply in the US as well

[Skybird]

In every bar or restaurant I ever sat in, more or less politely you will get asked sooner or later to order something. Its their business model. A restaurant is no bank in a public park

So much of activism over claimed race offences, claimed religion offences, claimed gender offences, claimed feminist offences etc etc are nothing but blown up demonstrations of ruthless egoism with a leftist political lobby.

I already have a problem with that a shop or bar owner cannot freely decide with whom he wishes to engage in transaction, and with whom not. I mean if a KKK-fan denies to accept black people in his shop, so let him have his way today. His choice will be perceived, and will make some audience avoiding him, and another audience going to him. Fine, the consequences of his KKK-attitude this way will find him. That he gets forced to accept just everyone, is not acceptable to me. Only lpublic offices and services, and state services, the law , police and such, have to accept treating everybody equally and non-discriminatory. But private people and private business owners...? Unacceptable.

Imagine me running a small fast food stand, for example. I would not deal quite some people: salafists, neo-nazis as two exmaples. But the state over here can force me to serve these miserable beings nevertheless? It is not my decision whether or not I do enagge in a business transaction wuith them? They are my masters, de facto? Or I own a hotel, and cannot feely refuse to lease my hall to a meeting of some wackos I do not wish to be of service to, I need to arrange fine.tune dlies that allow me to weasel around their request without them suing me for not doing business with them?

Sorry: totally unacceptable. Zero understanding for this from me.

And when there is indeed a racist, just forcing him by law will not make him less a racist. Only will make him even more extreme and bitter.

My house - my rules. Where this is not possible, I would refuse to establish a business. I do not like getting owned by just any stranger or political party.

The reasoning is stupid, but I cheer anytime a Starbucks closes it's doors. Can't help but agree with GoldenRivet on every point he makes.

I'm pretty convinced now that the reasoning behind the Left's cucking of themselves over black people, is because they are racist and feel guilty about it. They then assume that everyone one that looks like them is also racist. I mean after all, Democrats defended the institution of slavery. That has got to create quite the psychological hurdle for the little SJW soy people to perform through. I mean here they are, claiming that BlackLivesMatter, while they use the platform of the party that defended slavery to have their voices heard.

[kilerkg]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

So tell me what you think:

OPTION A:
OPTION B:

Spot on mate, I really can't believe this is erupting so much.

[Onkel Neal]

I wonder how much swearing the manager got when she told them no, the bathroom is for paying customers? That wasn't on the video, of course.