This is so much fun to watch. Almost as good as the Sexual Harassment Exposes.

Starbucks is the most liberal company that ever walked the face of the earth, and their Liberal posturing came back and bit them in the ass - lol

And now they're bending over backwards to appease the angry mob/bully libs that they helped create.

I read a lot of articles and they mostly have the same theme - "Starbucks is Racist" - but here's one that resonates with me -

Here's Why You Shouldn't Necessarily Believe The Racism Claims Against Starbucks

[www.dailywire.com]

Starbucks is in the process of being consumed by the liberal pitchfork mob it spent years placating. It's certainly tempting to sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude. But my disdain for pitchfork mobs is greater than my disdain for liberal corporations, so I will now do something I never thought I would do: defend Starbucks. Sort of.

Let's first take a look at the mess Starbucks has fallen into. The company is currently the subject of protests and boycotts and extremely bad press because of two "racist" incidents that occurred in two different locations over the span of a few days. It all started when a video surfaced of two black men being arrested at a store in Philadelphia. We were not given many details — and still we do not have many details — but the image of two black men being led out in cuffs was enough, in the minds of the mob, to prove bigotry. No other explanation has been entertained. No further evidence has been sought.

Then, on Monday, a video from a Starbucks in Los Angeles went viral. In this case, a black man was denied the code to the bathroom because he was not a paying customer. He then took out his phone and began filming. He discovered that a white man had been given access to the bathroom without buying anything, so he proceeded to berate the manager on duty (who was, by appearances, not white). Now that manager's face has been plastered everywhere online, and she has been labeled a bigot and a racist without anyone stopping to even consider what her side of the story might be.

Perhaps racism is really the culprit in both cases. Perhaps it is the culprit in one and not the other. But a rational and honest person would want to consider the entire context of these incidents before accusing anyone of something as serious as racism. It is just unfortunate that there aren't very many rational or honest people left in America. And there are none at all in a pitchfork mob.

The situation in Philadelphia obviously looks quite bad, but looks — especially the look of a viral video devoid of context — can be deceptive. Here is the missing context (or some of it, anyway): the two men were sitting in the store, taking up seats, without having actually purchased anything. That is, technically, loitering and trespassing. It just so happens that the Starbucks in Philadelphia has a policy against loitering. Loitering is apparently a significant problem at that location and the manager says that she has had some tense moments with loiterers in the past, including one incident where someone chased her around the store after refusing to leave.

The store employees tried to deal with the men peacefully. The men were informed that only customers can sit at the tables or use the restrooms — which is, again, a policy that this particular establishment has a history of enforcing — but the two refused to abide by the policy. When they were told that the police would have to be called, they responded, "Go ahead and call the police. We don't care."

The police arrived and negotiated with the men for several minutes. Still they would not leave. Finally the officers arrested them because there was literally no other option. A police officer cannot just allow someone to trespass on private property. If a trespasser will not clear off the premises, the police cannot say, "Well, okay, then. Never mind." They must uphold the law.

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?

The bathroom incident in Los Angeles is even murkier. It is standard policy in almost any urban restaurant or store of any kind to give bathroom privileges only to paying customers. Just last week I was refused the restroom at a cafe in D.C. because I hadn't purchased anything. So, I purchased something. It never occurred to me that my rights may have been infringed upon.

It is not necessarily significant that a white man had been able to use the restroom even as a black man was not. It could be evidence of racism, or it could simply be that the white man is a regular customer and the staff knew he would buy something. Regular customers often enjoy special privilege, regardless of their race. It could also be that he was given the restroom code by an employee who was more lax about the rules, and the black man was refused the code by an employee who was not so lax. Either of these explanations seem more plausible than the idea that a non-white woman working at a Starbucks in Los Angeles is racist against black people. Again, if that's the case, one must wonder how she has functioned at a store where an extremely high percentage of the customers are racial minorities. Was this her first day on the job? And her first day in Los Angeles?

Perhaps it was. Perhaps she's a filthy racist. Perhaps the manager in Philadelphia is a filthy racist. But I have seen no evidence to support those charges. And until someone can provide some, I won't be grabbing my pitchfork. And neither should you.

So here's the real story -

"In the suburbs restrooms in most places (including Starbucks) are open for anyone to use. However in cities where there are more issues with homelessness and crime/vandalism businesses often don't make restrooms publicly available, or require a key or code to use them.

A store creates a space for its customers that is paid for by the customers' purchases. These include tables, chairs, rest rooms, air conditioning, and so forth, all paid for by the purchases of the customer. Being that the business own the property, they get to make the rules. If a business opens its restrooms up to the public, then they end up inviting all sorts of nonpaying people, including street people, who will have a negative effect upon its cash flow. If they allow non-paying "customers" to occupy tables, they they are denying their paying customers a place to sit. This is why restricting things like sitting at tables, using the restrooms , and such, are reserved only to paying customers. This is a very common practice everywhere.

Now think of Philadelphia and understand that there are a great many minorities living there such that a very large proportion of the Starbucks store there is made up of minorities/blacks. Does this induce rampant racism there? I think not. Now considered how these two black men refused to leave and/or follow the store rules that everyone is expected to follow. Think of how the police immediately asked for a supervisor when they arrived at the store and this all indicates that these two black men were not quietly sitting there minding their own business. Clearly they were agitating to push their own narrative of a fabricated racist event. Also think about how they are claiming racism for not being given special privileges that no other non-paying "customer" is given.

Being that Starbucks folded like a cheap chair and blamed and even fired one of its employees for daring to follow company policy clearly shows how Starbucks is poorly run and is rudderless due to their chaotic attempts to please the SWJ crowd. The result is having people with bull horns abusing their employees who have done zero wrong and yet this is OK in the eyes of Starbucks. Additionally, by acknowledging this fabricated event as real, they are now giving a voice to every person who wants to use their own personal agenda as a reason to blackmail any other Starbucks and possibly any other non-related business. This is not a victory for the oppressed any more than claiming organized crime extorting money from a business is a victory for the little guy. People should be worried and shamed by the overall behavior of everyone involved (other than the police who tried to do things by the book and the employees who were following company policy - a policy indelibly written in disappearing ink.)"

I think it the Libs

Quote Jennifer
This is so much fun to watch. Almost as good as the Sexual Harassment Exposes.

The fact that Jennifer finds this to be fun speaks a few words about whats really in play here.

Get a life and have some good honest fun without the racist comments

read recorded cell calls read 911 call and comment stated a disturbance going on.

Don't be so fast to be Judge Jennie, you now haunt yourself!

READ THE FULL STORY, not yours!

Jennifer I think it now comes back to haunt yourself.

Read the outcome.

You are such a miserable racist.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2018 11:36PM by riverhousebill.

Problem 1 my dear Pre conceived notions.

i think Sara Quinlan makes some very good points.




Why We Shouldn’t Trivialize the Starbucks Arrests
Posted at 6:30 pm on April 18, 2018 by Sarah Quinlan




The story of the two black men arrested in a Starbucks should be an opportunity to listen to others’ experiences and to examine our preconceived notions.
The arrests of the two men quickly received nationwide attention. They had asked to use the Starbucks restroom but were denied because the restrooms were for customers only (which is a common restriction). They then stayed at the Starbucks without making a purchase; they said they were meeting a third friend, who hadn’t yet arrived.
A Starbucks store manager eventually called the police because they “refus[ed] to make a purchase or leave”; they were subsequently arrested, which another customer filmed and posted on social media. Now the Starbucks CEO has apologized and announced all 8,000 Starbucks stores will be closed on May 29 so employees can participate in racial bias training, while the manager who called the police no longer works for Starbucks.
There is a lot to unpack here.
The anger at the CEO and the entire company is entirely misplaced, as are any proposed Starbucks boycotts. The one employee has already lost her job; Starbucks is attempting to make amends for the mistake; and the CEO seems genuinely upset, as evidenced by his Tuesday appearance on CNN with Don Lemon.
Nevertheless, frustration with the entire situation is understandable.
It does not appear the two men were disruptive, loud, or rowdy. It was an overreaction to call 9-1-1 (!) to report two men in broad daylight sitting in a Starbucks without making a purchase. Using an emergency hotline for such purposes is irresponsible, and this was not an appropriate use of our police force.
Moreover, the response by the police seems over the top. They certainly had discretion in how they could have resolved the situation. And within three minutes of the police’s arrival at the Starbucks, they requested backup and a supervisor — all for two men, sitting at a table in a coffee shop.
And after being arrested, the men were detained for eight hours before they were released with no charges. How is this justice?
As a proponent of limited government, it enrages me that two men were arrested and held for eight hours all for waiting in a coffee shop without buying anything. It concerns me if people do not see a problem with the enforcement arm of our government behaving in this fashion.
It is possible more details will emerge, but based upon the currently known circumstances, including video in which other customers are heard saying “they didn’t do anything,” it appears none of this needed to happen.





Some may argue that being in a store without purchasing anything is trespassing, so it’s their own fault they were thrown out, and that being arrested is a fair outcome for trespassing. But such a view lacks nuance, and neither the store nor the police behaved reasonably.
Starbucks had every right to ask them to leave. But how often does that happen at Starbucks, a brand that has intentionally encouraged the idea that it is more than a coffee shop and that it is somewhere to linger, work, or set up meetings?
How many of us have sat in a Starbucks waiting for a friend or date and have not been asked to purchase something or leave? How many of us have sat in a Starbucks for hours after finishing our drink or food, working on laptops or reading, without being asked to leave? How many of us were ever even asked to leave, let alone accused of loitering or had the cops called on us?
Perhaps most significantly, how many of us were even noticed?
According to the American Psychological Association, “people have a tendency to perceive black men as larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men.”
So even though these two black men were simply engaging in similar behavior as countless others every single day, they were picked out and then deemed to be threatening.
The most heartbreaking part of the video was the look of resignation on the two men’s faces. They didn’t even try to resist their arrest.
Edited to add: Watch the video of the arrest below.

And what would have happened had they resisted — or even hesitated or expressed disbelief that they were being arrested for simply waiting in a coffee shop? Would the police have used force? How much? Would the police have shot them?
It might seem melodramatic to think about the police opening fire in a coffee shop simply for refusing to leave, but men have been shot at for holding cell phones, for admitting to a concealed carry permit, for answering the front door during a SWAT-ing, for being twelve years old with a toy gun, for having a broken taillight, and for crawling down a hotel hallway and hitching up their pants. They have been shot in a hotel hallway, in a park, at their front door, in cars, in their own yards, while being held down by multiple officers, from behind, and while running away.
So it’s not outside the realm of possibility. And, if the police had opened fire, what would the reaction have been? Would some have argued that it was appropriate to shoot two men, perhaps fatally, for allegedly trespassing in a coffee shop?
And what would have happened if there was no video? Would people have assumed that the manager and the cops were acting appropriately? Would many have assumed the two men had done something to provoke either the manager or the police?
Yes, these are “what ifs.” And we don’t know for sure what the reaction would have been. But it’s worth thinking about. It’s worth reflecting upon. It’s worth examining our own prejudices and behavior.
Starbucks’ day of diversity training may ultimately be ineffective, but the company is at least attempting to address an issue that some conservatives either don’t actually see or prefer not to see.
David Marcus at the Federalist criticized the negative reaction to Starbucks’ response and observed, “conservatives have an important role to play in the conversation about race in America, and we are failing.” I wholeheartedly agree, and I applaud Marcus for stating as much.
However, Marcus doesn’t go far enough. He writes that “the color of a person’s skin tells you nothing about him [or her] and should not be the basis of any judgment you make about him [or her].” This is truly a good-intentioned endeavor. Unfortunately, it’s not enough.
Implicit bias and disparate treatment are real. Two similar individuals of different races can be treated differently for the same behavior by other individuals, by society, and by their government. It’s not enough to preach color blindness — because it is necessary to see color in order to understand systemic racism and individual experiences.
It is difficult to understand what we cannot experience or have not experienced, whether it’s due to our race or our gender. That is why it is so important to listen to the experiences of those around us, rather than decide in advance that their experience must be inaccurate or their perspective must be faulty. This isn’t being “woke.” It’s simply understanding that many people may have a different experience than you do.
South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott, who has been pulled over seven times in one year as a black man driving a new car or in a certain neighborhood, has explained the importance of listening to others regarding their personal experiences:
Recognize that just because you do not feel the pain, the anguish of other, does not mean it does not exist. To ignore their struggles, our struggles, does not make them disappear, it simply leaves you blind and the American family very vulnerable…
Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio has discussed this in terms of Black Lives Matter before:
It is a fact that in the African-American community around this country there has been, for a number of years now, a growing resentment toward the way law enforcement and the criminal justice system interacts with the community…
I have one friend in particular who’s been stopped in the last 18 months eight to nine different times. Never got a ticket for being stopped — just stopped. If that happened to me, after eight or nine times, I’d be wondering what’s going on here. I’d be upset about it. So would anyone else.
Yes, slavery is over. Jim Crow laws were overturned. “Separate but equal” policies and segregation are no longer in place. The civil rights movement succeeded in demanding the rights of Americans of color be recognized and respected. And yes, our nation has come a far, far way, and there is much of which to be proud. But that does not mean racism cannot exist or the effects of racism do not still linger. And it does not help matters when we pretend otherwise. We must face the problem and work to provide conservative voices regarding 21st century issues.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2018 12:11AM by riverhousebill.

It's all bullcrap and all you libs know it, RHB.

It's like The Emperor Has No Clothes. Everybody knows that Starbucks is not racist and that the manager is not racist (just doing her job) but the Outrage Mob/Bully Libs have to seize the opportunity to cry, "Racist".

Don't you guys ever feel kind of silly, like everybody gets your shtick and rolls their eyes every time you all pile on the Libs' Racist bandwagon.

What if the two men had been White but, in every single other aspect, the situation were identical? The manager would undoubtedly responded to their 'squatting' in exactly the same way as she did here, although we cannot know I don't think it unreasonable to assume that she would. Had these White individuals behaved the same way she would have called the police (why 911? because that is the defacto number for law enforcement.) and everything else would have gone down exactly the same way with a single exception: We would NEVER have heard a peep out of anyone. No one, other than the store manager, what other customers may have been on the premises and the officers involved in the arrest would ever have had any knowledge of this event.

The individuals werent “oppressed”, they were loitering. They were asked to leave and refused. They had multiple opportunities to defuse the situation but decided their entitlement outweighed the rights of a private business. Then they found out the were wrong.

Tiresome lectures about white liberal guilt do nothing for me.

***************

"After a deeply troubling incident in which two black men were arrested for sitting in a Starbucks..."

I would expect a serious journalist to have written something like "...for refusing to leave a Starbucks after being asked to do so by police." That would have been both accurate, and the proper way to set the stage for presenting his argument.

****************

You are assuming facts not in evidence. You are assuming the manager had racialist attitudes. You are assuming the police had racialist attitudes. AND you are assuming that even if it can be proven that the manager had racialist attitudes, that the police did not use appropriate discretion. In almost every one of these public incidents, the FIRST thing we jump to is racism. But if we'll just reserve judgment for a little while, it almost always turns out that the facts paint a different story.

I am tired the moral scolding of virtue-signalling, guilt-ridden whites, liberal and self-identifying conservatives alike. If we practice justice towards each other as individuals and as Americans regardless of ethnic heritage and practice humble acceptance of other people's backgrounds and history, we can't be asked for to pay for the sins of those in past generations who practiced injustice and hatred towards ethnic minorities in past generations.

And not just Starbuck's reaction. They lost me (not that they ever had me to begin with) the moment the outrage industry got involved and Zack got a bullhorn to the face. I don't have time for that nonsense.

********

"Starbucks was quick to call police after asking the men to leave despite their having committed no crime."

You mean Other than trespassing? Once they had indicated that they weren't actual customers and had refused to vacate the premises as asked, legally, by the manager, they were committing the misdemeanor of trespassing.

********

If you enter onto the, especially commercial, property of another with no intent of availing yourself of the services proffered by that property owner then you are trespassing. If you refuse to leave when asked then you are criminally trespassing.

If there was a history of these meetings then, surely, the manager would have been aware of that history. If this was a new manager then just as surely she would have been aware of the policy that permitted them to await the arrival of their client/guest.

Once they were asked to leave they had no choice, legally, but to comply with that request/demand to vacate. They did have alternate courses of action they could have pursued: They could have made a token purchase, they could have asked forbearance from the manager, they could have reached out to their guest/partner to determine why he was late and when he was coming. They could have, once outside, called police and charged the store manager with violating their civil rights. But, if the store manger is to be believed, they became "belligerent".

If the individuals refused to make a purchase and then refused to vacate the premises they were committing a misdemeanor, at a minimum. Had they left when asked by police there would have been no arrest.

Does anyone seriously believe that law enforcement would arrest someone KNOWING that they had committed no crime? Imagine you're the cop. A merchant tells you that they have trespassers. You ask the accused what't going and they say they are waiting for someone. You then asked if they intended to purchase anything (a bit of conjecture here but I find it impossible to believe that at least some minimal investigatory work was not done) and they tell you "No". You then ask if they had been asked to leave and they respond "Yes". What you have is an admission by the accused that they did that of which they were accused: That they refused to make a purchase and refused to leave when asked.

That is not "doing nothing wrong". It is trespassing and a violation of one of the fundamental rights for which government exists in the first place. An individual's right to occupy the property of another is subordinate to the property owner's right to the possession and control of his own property.

This manager deserves her day in court and a big fat judgement from Starbucks for her wrongful dismissal.

These individuals were not customers though they may have been potential or future customers. They were not making any purchases. They were asked to leave and they refused. The police, as police ALWAYS DO, had a brief conversation in which they would have asked certain, relevant questions. We don't know but we can reasonably infer that the police confirmed what they were told by the manager. We can reasonably assume that they offered to allow the men to leave and avoid arrest. The police do not appear to be using violence or excessive force so there does not appear to be any Resisting Arrest charges; only trespassing, of which they were clearly guilty.

I seriously doubt that Starbucks is in the habit of harassing guests who are awaiting the arrival of other members of their party. If they had communicated their intentions at the outset I find it very difficult to believe that permission would have been denied or that granted, it would have been revoked.

But we are unlikely to ever know the full truth about any of this because now everyone has a different agenda wherein "Truth" is not a consideration.

No, this is not an example of a racist state, just an example of two people with an entitlement mentality who felt they could stay where they weren’t welcome.

They were in a PRIVATE establishment and are subject to the trespassing laws, just like white people.

When asked to leave a private establishment, you either comply or you are subject to arrest, just like white people.

Seems to me that they were treated just like white people.

*************

" It’s not enough to preach color blindness — "

As long as the left continues to emphasize our differences and drives racism as a natural result, then it is indeed enough. In a world that idolizes Michael Brown, a certified thug, yes, this is indeed enough. In a world that tells people they are racist no matter what, then yes, this is indeed enough.

*************

]The manager has finally commented and she says they were belligerent to her requests to leave after allowing them to loiter for 15 minutes. That's completely consistent with the fact that the police chief (who's black) also said they refused to comply with the officers requests when they got there. They were not simply hauled off for no reason. No one had to be arrested that day. She also denies that they asked to use the restroom.

Further, a report delivered by Ben Shapiro today via a letter he received from a frequent customer says that in his several conversations with the manager, she was in fact very liberal and a "hippie."

There's zero evidence this woman was motivated by race at this point. It's not right to drag her through the mud without having more information and right now we still lack key details.

The Racism Industry is fond of making up crimes such as "DWB; Driving While Black". This manager was fired for doing her job while White . They are more interested in virtue signalling and political correctness than they are in providing their actual paying customers with a pleasant dining experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2018 03:36AM by Jennifer.

Jennifer the Ceo of star bucks also thinks what happened a bunch of crap, that is why Starbucks to close 8,000 stores for racial-bias education ...


The victims said not to boycott starbucks they don't blame starbuck corp for the racism!

A few bad apples and ceo took right step to fire!

The anger at the CEO and the entire company is entirely misplaced, as are any proposed Starbucks boycotts. The one employee has already lost her job; Starbucks is attempting to make amends for the mistake; and the CEO seems genuinely upset, as evidenced by his Tuesday appearance on CNN with Don Lemon.


3 days ago
Apr 17, 2018 · The “racial-bias education” training is scheduled for May 29 ... A day earlier ... An employee said Starbucks company policy was to refuse the use of ...


Starbucks to close 8,000 stores for racial-bias education ...
The Washington Post

People get ready for big change, the racist cant hide anymore!

I think this guys makes some very good points. His points are called "The Facts."

The Facts Are In. The Real Story At Starbucks Is Entitlement, Not Racism.

[www.dailywire.com]

"When the controversy over two black men getting escorted out of a Starbucks by police first erupted, I was skeptical of the racism claims but I said I needed to hear all the facts. Well, now we have the facts. It is now confirmed that this incident stems not from racism but from entitlement.

We were told at first that two black men sat down at a table, and, out of nowhere, for no reason other than their race, were summarily perp walked out of the establishment by an army of police officers. This already made little sense for a number of reasons, including the fact that the incident occurred at a store in Philadelphia. The store presumably sees hundreds of black customers every week. If it was in the habit of having black people randomly arrested, why is this the first time we're hearing about it?

Then more information came out. It was discovered that this particular location has a problem with loitering (not surprising for a restaurant in an urban area), and the manager in question has had potentially dangerous altercations with loiterers in the past. Then we find out that the two men were warned that the cops would be coming and they responded, "Go ahead and call them. We don't care."

A couple of days later, Ben Shapiro revealed that the manager, Holly, is an "SJW feminist of the highest order," according to a regular customer at that location. Certainly not the picture of a slobbering, uncontrollable racial bigot who hates black people so much that she reports them to the police without provocation.

Finally, over the past several hours, two additional details have come to the surface:

1) The 911 call placed by Holly, in which she says, very reasonably, "I have two gentlemen in my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave.” This is significant because it confirms that the men were given the option to at least buy something and, incredibly, they refused.

2) Their own testimony, which they gave to "Good Morning America" on Thursday. According to their own version, they walked into the store, grabbed a table, and then asked to use the restroom. The manager told them that they had to buy something to use it. They declined, and went back to sit at the table without having purchased anything. Now that they had called attention to themselves, the manager was aware of their presence and aware that they were not paying customers. She approached them and offered to get them drinks or anything else they might want. They declined. They were asked to leave and they declined. The police came and asked them to leave and they declined. This is their own version.

When asked on "Good Morning America" how they would respond to people who say they broke the rules by loitering and not buying anything, their lawyer declared that Starbucks is a "place to meet." In other words, they have decided that this private establishment is more like a camping ground or a public park. A person is entitled to take up seats in a busy restaurant without buying so much as a $2 coffee in order to earn the privilege. The Starbucks CEO, who has spent all week cowering to the mob and throwing his innocent store manager under the bus, has now affirmed this interpretation. He may very well have destroyed his business in the process. So be it.

But the fact remains — and it is a fact now — that these two men were not the victims of "racism." They not only broke the rules but did so brazenly and obnoxiously. What sort of person is approached politely in this kind of situation, asked to buy something so that paying customers are not deprived of the seating, and actually answers "no"? An incredibly entitled person. And now I'm sure they are about to be "entitled" to a multi-million dollar settlement, all because Starbucks tried to enforce its rules against loitering.

One other thing to keep in mind here. There is a real victim in this case: the Starbucks manager whose life is now in ruins, and who is probably afraid to even leave her house, all because she tried her best to follow her company's policies. For that, she is Public Enemy Number One across the nation, and the CEO of her company has tossed her to the wolves. She was the victim of the rude and unacceptable behavior of these men, and now she is the victim of a pitchfork mob comprised of hysterical people LIBS who do not know the facts and do not care about them.

If anyone should sue, it should be she. But that's not how things work in America anymore."

Quote
riverhousebill
Jennifer the Ceo of star bucks also thinks what happened a bunch of crap, that is why Starbucks to close 8,000 stores for racial-bias education ...


The victims said not to boycott starbucks they don't blame starbuck corp for the racism!

A few bad apples and ceo took right step to fire!

The anger at the CEO and the entire company is entirely misplaced, as are any proposed Starbucks boycotts. The one employee has already lost her job; Starbucks is attempting to make amends for the mistake; and the CEO seems genuinely upset, as evidenced by his Tuesday appearance on CNN with Don Lemon.


3 days ago
Apr 17, 2018 · The “racial-bias education” training is scheduled for May 29 ... A day earlier ... An employee said Starbucks company policy was to refuse the use of ...


Starbucks to close 8,000 stores for racial-bias education ...
The Washington Post

People get ready for big change, the racist cant hide anymore!

What? Are you trying to say that you place the blame on the Manager. You are stating this is her fault - because she's a "Racist"?

I hope you're not accusing the Manager of Racism - because it's a fact that she's a Lib/SJW. And you know it's impossible for a Lib/SJW to be Racist...

In fact thanks to the Lib Outrage Mob, her life is ruined for now. That's the travesty of this whole Fake News Story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2018 03:41AM by Jennifer.

I hope you're not accusing the Manager of Racism




racial-bias education ... Good idea a day late but better late than never-A change is coming!


According to the American Psychological Association, “people have a tendency to perceive black men as larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men.”

So even though these two black men were simply engaging in similar behavior as countless others every single day, they were picked out and then deemed to be threatening.


Jennifer The story of the two black men arrested in a Starbucks should be an opportunity to listen to others’ experiences and to examine our preconceived notions.



It just very well might be you like many people have this fear the American Psychological Association speaks of, If that's the case I owe you an apology for calling you a racist, when the real factor could be just false preconceived notions about people of color that turned to fear???



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2018 04:50AM by riverhousebill.

Quote
riverhousebill

According to the American Psychological Association, “people have a tendency to perceive black men as larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men.”

Psychologist are Libs - by a ratio of 14 to 1.

So even though these two black men were simply engaging in similar behavior as countless others every single day, they were picked out and then deemed to be threatening.

We'd have to know every case-by-case basis, but they were asked to leave or buy something and refused, so the manager followed the protocol. The same as everybody else in that situation.


Jennifer The story of the two black men arrested in a Starbucks should be an opportunity to listen to others’ experiences and to examine our preconceived notions.

No, it's an opportunity for the Lib Bullies to impute 'racism' onto Southerners/Republicans/Christians/white people.

It just very well might be you like many people have this fear the American Psychological Association speaks of, If that's the case I owe you an apology for calling you a racist, when the real factor could be just false preconceived notions about people of color that turned to fear???

This discussion isn't about me, it's about the Starbucks incident. Specifically whether the two guys were arrested as a result of racism on the part of the manager or because they were loitering and trespassing. And whether the Manager was made the scapegoat by Starbucks CEO because the Lib Outrage Mob/Bullies left him groveling like a lapdog. Libs turn men into pussies.

In Starbucks Arrests, Social Justice Silliness Smears Good Policing

[pjmedia.com]

No one was shot, no one was tased, no one was beaten with a baton. No one was punched, or kicked, or had even a single hair put out of place. And yet it remains a national news story which, we are told, serves to instruct us on matters of race and the police and how little has changed in the country in the last 50 years.

I refer of course to the April 12 incident at a Philadelphia Starbucks, in which two black men were arrested for trespassing -- only to be thrust hours later onto the roster of civil rights heroes. Rosa Parks, meet Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson.

How utterly silly it all is. Since the arrest, protesters have disrupted the business, the mayor of Philadelphia and the CEO of Starbucks have been publicly flagellating themselves in fits of guilt and shame, and the commissioner of the city’s police department -- after initially saying the involved officers had done nothing wrong -- has now dutifully joined in the expressions of remorse, presumably after a dressing down from the mayor.

The facts of the case are simple: In the early evening of April 12, Messrs. Nelson and Robinson entered the Starbucks at 18th and Spruce Streets and took a table. Nelson asked an employee if he could use the restroom, for which he needed an entry code. He was told the restroom was for paying customers, and he declined to make a purchase. He then sat down with Robinson, and the manager approached them and asked if she could bring them anything. They declined the offer.

So the manager, apparently in keeping with company policy, called the police and asked to have the men removed. The police arrived and very patiently and civilly explained the situation to Nelson and Robinson. At this juncture, the prudent man might say to himself: “Maybe I should buy something, or maybe I should wait for my friend somewhere else.” Nelson and Robinson exercised neither of these two options, preferring to be arrested and to take a stand for their “rights,” whatever those rights might be.

As they apparently understand them, Nelson and Robinson believe they have a right to occupy a table at a coffee shop without making a purchase or otherwise compensating the business, whose owners might prefer the space be occupied by people willing to, you know, buy something. And now enter the police officers, unwitting players in what was to become the latest act in America’s racial drama. “What’s the problem?” they ask. “Those guys are sitting at a table,” the officers are told, “and they haven’t bought anything and they’re refusing to leave.”

As a matter of law enforcement, this is an easy one.

“Guys,” the cops might have said to Nelson and Robinson, “they asked you to buy something or get out. Are you going to do either and avoid getting arrested?”

“No,” they say.

“Okay,” say the cops, “it’s off to the clink with you, then.”

And then, in a scenario today’s police officers are wearily familiar with, enters the well-meaning, socially conscious bystander, in this case the man Nelson and Robinson were to meet before the unpleasantness began. “Why are you arresting them?” he asks.

“Trespassing,” comes the answer, which is followed by a lecture about discrimination and racism and blah, blah, blah. Why is it, cops wonder, people feel free to interject themselves into someone else’s arrest and pass judgment on its propriety? If I’m arresting Mr. Smith, I’m under no obligation to explain my actions to Mr. Jones unless he is a witness to the crime or somehow otherwise involved. Imagine being at work one day and having some stranger walk in off the street and tell you you’re not doing your job properly. This is what cops deal with every day.

The reactions of Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney and Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson were entirely predictable, even routine for people in their positions facing a racial controversy. They groveled pathetically, hoping the coming maelstrom would not devour them. More encouraging (at first) was the response from Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, who stood up for his officers and said they had done nothing wrong. He was soon corrected and made to join the groveling, saying he was unaware, as were the officers, that it was the practice at Starbucks to allow people to lounge about in their cafes without contributing to the overhead. Had the officers known this, said Ross, they would have handled it differently.

How?

When an officer is called to the scene of an alleged trespassing, his only job is to make sure the elements of the crime have been committed, and if so, make the arrest. Yes, he has the option of negotiating a compromise, and indeed the police attempted to do just that. They spoke to the men for several minutes trying to gain their compliance.

But if an accused trespasser refuses to leave, the officer has no choice but to take him into custody.

It is not the officer’s place to engage in racial bean-counting and inquire how many people of various ethnicities have been similarly treated. If the manager didn’t want the men arrested, she shouldn’t have called the police. She’s been ousted from her job, naturally, so she won’t make that mistake again.

I close with a little perspective. The nearby map, created at the Philadelphia Police Department website, shows the 337 crimes reported in the area near 18th and Spruce Streets over the last six months:

[static.pjmedia.com]

Whatever the result of the present furor, whichever scalps are taken to appease the mob, whatever consciousness-raising is done to address “implicit bias” by the purveyors of overpriced coffee, when another six months have passed, will that map look better or worse?

when another six months have passed, will that map look better or worse?

better my bet, Trump will be out of office by then, You cant fall off the floor!
And State Rico laws will indict.

The war on standards reaches coffee stores

[www.powerlineblog.com]

Let’s start with the disclosure thing. As an attorney, I had the good fortune to represent Starbucks in various matters, including a case, a matter of public record, where race discrimination was alleged (but not found). Nothing in this post is based on any information obtained as an attorney representing the company more than six years ago.

What to make of the arrest of two black men at a Starbucks in Philadelphia and the controversy that followed? First, the Starbucks manager appears to have done nothing wrong. According to a company spokesperson, the company policy in her store was that “partners” must ask non-purchasers to leave and call the police if they refuse. I’ve seen no indication that this was not, in fact, store policy and practice. Absent any such evidence, the manager should not have faced any disciplinary action for her conduct.

Second, the policy makes perfect sense. A Starbucks store is not a public space. If you aren’t going to purchase anything, you have no business being in the store for an extended period of time. And if a non-purchaser refuses to comply with a request to leave, the best way to enforce the policy is to call the police. What’s the alternative, bouncers?

It’s a sad commentary that anyone would even contemplate using Starbucks as a free meeting-ground. When I meet people at Starbucks, I always purchase something even though I don’t drink coffee. It would never occur to me not to. Only a strong sense of entitlement, not to mention bad manners, would lead anyone to think he can occupy the store for an extended period of time without paying.

Third, recent statements of contrition by Starbucks and the Philadelphia police are problematic. The same company spokesperson who stated that the store manager followed store policy also said that “in this situation, the police never should have been called.”

What does she mean by “in this situation?” Perhaps she means that the two men were not “misbehaving,” a claim made by their attorney (inevitably, these entitled-feeling young men now have a lawyer). But the refusal to purchase anything was misbehavior — it violated reasonable store policy as well as propriety. Calling the police in these circumstances is the best way to handle a situation in which the only alternatives seem to be abandoning policy or engaging in self-help.

Would Starbucks find anything wrong with a store manager calling the police on two white non-purchasers who refused to leave a store? I doubt it.

Thus, when the company spokesperson says the police should not have been called “in this situation,” she probably means a situation involving black customers. The company’s decision in the aftermath of the incident to hold “unconscious bias” training for employees at 8,000 stores supports my inference.

The Philadelphia police chief made a similar comment. Initially, he said his officers “did absolutely nothing wrong.” But he later backed away from this statement, stating “I should have said the officers acted within the scope of the law, and not that they didn’t do anything wrong.” He added that if he has done anything to worsen race relations, “shame on me.”

Taken as a whole, this series of comments suggests that the conduct of the police was wrong because of its impact on race relations. Had two white men been taken into custody on this set of facts, or if there had been less pushback against the police over taking these two black men into custody, I doubt the police chief would have amended his initial statement that his officers did nothing wrong.

Starbucks says it’s working with the two non-purchasers to implement new policies on customer ejections and racial profiling. I’ve seen no evidence, though, that the ejection of the two blacks was an instance of racial profiling rather than a case of simple adherence to store rules. Unless the manager has previously permitted whites to gather in the store without buying anything, any inference that she engaged in racial profiling is baseless and offensive.

As for “customer ejection” policy (are non-purchasers really “customers”?), a company should always be willing to review controversial policies. But if Starbucks softens its prohibition against non-purchasers remaining in the store, or its enforcement of the prohibition, it will look very much like a case of abandoning sound business practice in response to an apparently baseless claim of race discrimination.

In other words, a lowering of standards for race-based reasons.

*******

In other words - cowtowing/pandering to the Bully Libs cause you're scared of them.

Now this is Justice -

I hope she sues the ass off Starbucks - everybody knows the manager isn't racist and this is just a Liberal Racemonger Fake News Story. But the Lib Outrage Mob had to ruin her to advance their racist narrative. And the rest of us feign that we believe it because we're all afraid of the Lib Bullies. It's disgusting what they did to that manager.

DEFAMATION: The Starbucks Manager Accused Of Racism Is Probably About To Be A MILLIONAIRE

[dailycaller.com]

The former Starbucks manager who called the police on two non-paying black customers earlier this month may have a good case for bringing a defamation suit against the coffee company.

In numerous public statements, Starbucks and its CEO Kevin Johnson have gone out of their way to imply that the the female manager, identified in media reports as Holly Hylton, was acting on subconscious racial motivations when she told the loitering customers to either buy a beverage or get out of her store. Crucially, Starbucks has also strongly implied that, as a factual matter, the manager violated company policy.

Defamation law varies by state, but the gist is simple: Negligently saying, or implying, something that is provably false about a private person constitutes actionable defamation, as long as the statement harms the victim’s reputation.

In Pennsylvania, where the incident occurred, defamation is governed by 42 § 8343. The statute is a typical defamation law, and it puts the burden on the plaintiff to show, among other things, that the statement was made about the defendant, was false, and caused damages.

Johnson has called the manager’s conduct “reprehensible” and ordered a shutdown of its US stores for training to address “implicit bias, promote conscious inclusion, prevent discrimination and ensure everyone inside a Starbucks store feels safe and welcome.”

On its official Twitter account, Starbucks tweeted Tuesday: “We’re taking a hard look at who we are as a company. We’re ashamed & recognize that racial bias is a problem we must address.” The company added: “There are countless examples of implicit bias resulting in discrimination against people of color, both in and outside our stores.”

And a Starbucks spokesperson has said that “in this situation, the police never should have been called.”

A reasonable person would conclude that Starbucks is calling Hylton, at best, an unwitting racist. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, Starbucks is saying its manager failed to follow store policy as a factual matter.

Calling someone a racist might seem to be an opinion (and opinions, even poorly reasoned ones, cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit). But courts have shown a willingness to entertain defamation suits against companies that irresponsibly misrepresent provable facts and, in doing so, portray people as racist.

Just last year, a federal appeals court reinstated a New Orleans professor’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, which was based on his claim that the paper negligently portrayed him as a racist supporter of slavery.

“If, as [Professor] Block has pleaded, he stated during the interview that slavery was ‘not so bad’ except for its involuntariness, a reasonable jury could determine that the NYT’s decontextualized quotation falsely portrayed him as communicating that chattel slavery itself was not problematic – exactly the opposite of the point that he says he was making,” the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Similarly, Hylton can claim that the company’s decontextualized accounts of what occurred in the store falsely portray her as acting on her alleged disdain of black people, which obviously harms her reputation. Starbucks has not provided much information about how long the customers were in the store, or what its precise policy for dealing with non-paying customers is — leaving people free to speculate that Hylton is simply a racist.

Hylton can also likely meet her burden of showing that Starbucks’ claim that she violated store policy is false. In fact, the same company spokesperson who said the police should never have been called also said that the standard policy is to call the police when non-purchasers refuse to leave the store.

“In this particular store, the guidelines were that partners must ask unpaying customers to leave the store, and police were to be called if they refused,” a Starbucks spokeswoman told The Washington Post last week. It seems that following the guidelines is exactly what the manager did.

Nowhere on its Twitter feed, or in its public statements, does Starbucks explain how long the two black customers who refused to purchase anything (or leave the store when asked) remained in the establishment. While the company strongly implies the manager violated company policy, nowhere does Starbucks bother to elaborate on its marching orders for dealing with loitering customers. At the moment, it seems there are no limitations on remaining in a Starbucks indefinitely without buying a beverage.

In fact, Starbucks company policy seems so scattershot and poorly communicated that a YouTuber was recently able to stroll into a Starbucks and demand a free coffee — with caramel and milk — as “Starbucks reparations.” An unwitting barista obliged cheerily, seemingly convinced that the policy was real.

If, hypothetically, you kick a man out of your store because he’s taking up valuable space without buying anything — which is your right — and then your company fires you, calls you reprehensible, says you broke policy and institutes racial bias training, then your company is no longer simply voicing its opinion that you are racist.

It is saying it had policies you objectively broke, and it’s effectively denying (through omission) that the customers were trespassing at all. Those are implied factual assertions, and they can form the basis of a defamation suit.

It might be argued that because the manager has not been publicly named by Starbucks, she doesn’t have a defamation case. After all, defamation is all about losing reputation in your community — and you can’t lose reputation if you’re anonymous.

But Hylton’s name was apparently quickly determined by media outlets based on information provided by Starbucks. And her friends and coworkers certainly know who she is, and they are seeing the thousands upon thousands of tweets and official statements that she is a racist and an awful human being who should never find employment again. That’s enough to trigger the protections of defamation law — particularly for private citizens.

Johnson, Starbucks CEO, recently met with the two black men who were removed from the store to personally apologize. Regardless of the strength of Hylton’s potential claim, the CEO should probably make time to meet with his humiliated former store manager as well — or she might have a chance to take him to court for her own “Starbucks reparations.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2018 03:22AM by Jennifer.

In many cases, unless there is a contract or bargaining agreement, employees accept a job offer at will, referred to as employment at will, meaning that neither the employer nor the employee need a reason to terminate the relationship

SHE HAS NO CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND THE TWO GENTELMEN COULD TAKE HER TO CIVIL COURT. She will never see a nickle my bet.

I think if God did not create the Libs we would all be fine.

But he did.

You can scoff, but the lib culture is ruining us - especially men and children - and liberal policy is destroying the sovereignty of America.

Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?

[www.heritage.org]

Quote
Jennifer
You can scoff, but the lib culture is ruining us - especially men and children - and liberal policy is destroying the sovereignty of America.

Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?

[www.heritage.org]

And the non Libs are allowing that to happen?

The bigger problem is the non Libs doing nothing to stop it.

Maybe there are two groups of people:

1) Those who believe they can change or contribute to the world by their thoughts and actions.

2) Those who believe that they are always victims and that the world is after them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2018 09:26AM by RawPracticalist.

But blaming the libs is so much easyer, We don't have to do anything, ecept blame the Libs libs and stick our heads back in the sand.

jemmifers Lib blame game is lame game!

Get over yourelf and turn FOX MOO's off. there is more to the problem than Fox Moo's is showing you, More to life than just bad Libs dear.

The House - Non Lib
The Senate - Non Lib
The President - Non Lib
The Attorney General - Non Lib

Even the Supreme Court with the new Justice is more conservative.

But the Libs are responsible for the country problems.

Quote
RawPracticalist

The House - Non Lib (Full of RINO's)
The Senate - Non Lib (Full of RINO's)
The President - Non Lib (Total RINO, Establishment, mostly Liberal)
The Attorney General - Non Lib (He screwed up when he recused himself)

Even the Supreme Court with the new Justice is more conservative.

New Justice just screwed up and sided with the Libs on Illegal Immigration.

But the Libs are responsible for the country problems.

So are the Establishment Republicans/RINO's.

Only the Conservatives/Libertarians are liberty-minded - Guys like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Dave Brat, Thomas Massie, Louie Gohmert, Justin Amish, others I can't remember right now.

Look at this Conservative Scorecard to see who's a RINO and who's Conservative/Libertarian -

[www.conservativereview.com]

>Look at this Conservative Scorecard to see who's a RINO and who's Conservative/Libertarian -

The voters decide.

Some of the true Conservative you listed ran for President.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2018 02:56PM by RawPracticalist.

Yup, it's the blacks, the libs and the jews messing everything up...

I have nothing against blacks - except the criminals - or Jews. It's the lib women I have a problem with because they've debased our culture, ruined our children and emasculated our men.

I think we all have problems with the criminals no matter what race they are.

Even the non lib criminals.

Regarding Starbucks' liberal righteousness coming back to bite them in the ass - some journalists said it best -

"Starbucks was hoisted by their own petard."

Lol

The A.P.A is right on with there study,


According to the American Psychological Association, “people have a tendency to perceive black men as larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men.”

By Shayna Freisleben CBS News May 3, 2018, 12:04 PM
Black former White House staffer was moving into new apartment when someone called police

Darren Martin, a former aide in the Obama White House, was moving boxes into his new apartment in New York City when he was confronted by police officers.




A former White House staffer was in the midst of moving into a New York City apartment when he says he was confronted by police officers in the lobby.
The offense, according to Darren Martin? "Moving while black."
Martin, 29, who worked in the White House's Office of Legislative Affairs under President Obama, captured the April 28 encounter with NYPD officers on Instagram Live. He subsequently posted the video to Twitter, where his story became widely shared.
"I'm in my apartment, but you know -- you can't go nowhere without the cops following me," he said in the video. "Somebody called the cops on me in my own building."
As Martin attempted to move boxes into his new fifth-floor walk-up on Manhattan's Upper West Side that night, "about six of y'all showed up, rolled up on me," he noted of the officers.
Three uniformed officers began questioning Martin as he stood in the lobby of his building, Martin writes in a series of tweets, offering context for the accompanying Instagram Live video. Soon after, "three or four" plainclothes police officers arrive. Martin alleges that the cops unlawfully entered his unit.
"The plan was to do this today in daylight, recording all the pomp that comes along with such a move," he writes on Twitter. "Well, life and work happens and you end up having to move on a Friday night at 11 [p.m.]."
In another tweet, he notes, "Moving up a 5th floor walk up is tough, but each of those 100 plus steps becomes increasingly grueling with the thought that you're feared or just not wanted in the building."

The Bronx, New York native recently moved back to his hometown to continue working in public service.
In an interview with CBS News, Martin describes being perpetually "cognizant" of the manner in which he dresses, noting that authority figures can view African-Americans differently if they're wearing a "suit or a hoodie."
"Profiling is something that black men and women deal with on a regular basis," Martin told CBS News. "Whether they're in the C-suite or working in the service industry."
"We don't always have the opportunity to document it, and the profiling can lead to really unfortunate circumstances."
Later in the video, an NYPD officer standing alongside Martin holds his radio as a dispatcher recounts the 911 call received about him. According to the dispatcher, a caller claimed "somebody was trying to break into the door," with "possibly a weapon or a large tool."
"Oh my God," Martin says in response.
NYPD officials later said that officers responded to a call of a burglary in progress at 11:26 p.m.
Fifteen minutes after arriving, police officers ascertained that Martin did, in fact, live there, he says. Yet on the heels of backlash erupting over two black men being forcibly removed from a Philadelphia Starbucks last month, Martin believes his encounter serves as another reminder of the prevalence of racial profiling.
"There are things that you are taught which on [their] face appear to be common sense: 'don't do anything crazy, don't do anything stupid,'" Martin tells CBS News. "But mundane things, or even requests from police officers, can be amplified and perceived as a threat because of the color of your skin."
On the initial Instagram Live footage, one user commented: "Be nice...don't be combative." Martin says that friends watching in real time sent him direct messages, cautioning him not to get arrested.
"We have the power to document these scenarios now and prove we're not just making this stuff up," Martin says. "I think people need to know this is a reality."
He adds, "I'm just happy to be here telling the story. A lot of men and women of color don't have that opportunity."