Rush spent some time on this story today. Apparently, two black men entered a Starbucks to “wait for a friend.” They did not buy anything and also wanted to use the bathroom. The manager called the cops.

Starbucks CEO, Kevin Johnson is embarrassed; therefore 8,000 Starbucks locations will close May 29, for sensitivity training.

I ain’t kiddin’ neither

I cannot imagine taking up space, using a table, chairs, etc. that belong to a restaurant or coffee shop without being a paying customer. This would be even more true if the place was busy and I might be taking up space that rightly belongs to a paying customer.

I guess I was raised differently; not in a cave by wolves.



.

And, I shit you not, it is Eric Holder who will be running the Starbucks Reeducation Camps that day.

You just know it's going to be an entire day of beating up on Whitey.

That's their story, and of course Starbutts jumps on it as a method to achieve mass marketing reach with the story, free advertising other than the lost revenue for the stores but it's part of the "we appreciate the victim of xxx" strategy..

So what happens when the regular customers of those 8000 stores realize they don't need Starbucks anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
So what happens when the regular customers of those 8000 stores realize they don't need Starbucks anyway?

They can melt a brown crayon in a cup of boiling water and save the 5.75 they pay for that swill at Starfucks.

I heard a good one toady:

"Panera should offer free coffee that day to all who are shut out by this 'training'"

As I understand it, the supervising officer on the scene and the Police Commissioner, who are both black, say this issue wasn't racist, just simple trespassing by two men who refused to leave, even at the officers' request.

If I were Starbucks, I would get all the information first, then decide whether the incident had any racial component.



.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:...If I were Starbucks, I would get all the information first, then decide whether the incident had any racial component.
.

I think they already know it wasn't racial, they are using this as a marketing ploy. But there's a chance it could backfire, attract more "trespassers".

My guess is that these were two guys looking to advance an agenda. They had every opportunity to defuse the situation. All they had to do was spend $1 and buy a cookie or shot of espresso and the store would have been happy to have them sit and enjoy it. Or they could have left when the manager asked them to. Or they could have left when the cops asked them to. Instead they chose to get arrested so that they could be national news. And now they are.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
My guess is that these were two guys looking to advance an agenda. They had every opportunity to defuse the situation. All they had to do was spend $1 and buy a cookie or shot of espresso and the store would have been happy to have them sit and enjoy it. Or they could have left when the manager asked them to. Or they could have left when the cops asked them to. Instead they chose to get arrested so that they could be national news. And now they are.

Stop making sense.
- David Byrne

My problem with this is; the manager was following her store's policy, her call to the police was calm and non-racial in her description, and the corporation fired her (likely for the social impact).

I foresee the young lady in question (the manager) seeing a sudden financial windfall for wrongful termination (likely to be settled out of court) when the fact it was the store's policy to make that call and the company was willing to lose upwards of $16M in a effort to maintain a certain social perception of their stores.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
If I were Starbucks, I would get all the information first, then decide whether the incident had any racial component.



.

Starbucks is a liberal owned and operated company making any chance of rationally handling this issue impossible. And I 100% agree this is a marketing stunt. I've never liked anything about the Starbucks' experience and have never purchased a thing from them. This BS will only harden my resolve to never step foot into one of their ridiculous hipster stores.

And, with this little virtue-signalling stunt, the already-high odds against my ever again partaking of Starbucks' products just went even higher.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:...I foresee the young lady in question (the manager) seeing a sudden financial windfall for wrongful termination (likely to be settled out of court) when the fact it was the store's policy to make that call and the company was willing to lose upwards of $16M in a effort to maintain a certain social perception of their stores.

Seems to me there's a good chance you are correct here.

I believe Starsucks has stated they aren't going to change their "anti-loitering" policy, even though they're closing 8,000+ stores one day to browbeat their employees with "sensitivity training."

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I heard a good one toady:

"Panera should offer free coffee that day to all who are shut out by this 'training'"

Maybe you meant to write: “I heard a good one today:”

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
I believe Starsucks has stated they aren't going to change their "anti-loitering" policy, even though they're closing 8,000+ stores one day to browbeat their employees with "sensitivity training."

For some reason, I sense that only white men will be capable of loitering.

Day of indoctrination > white privilege = bad, black privilege = good.

Ever notice there isn’t any Starbucks in the ghetto? This is why. Starbucks is a business, black folks don’t buy $5 coffee.