New recipes

Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order

Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order

Eighties heartthrob and outspoken Donald Trump supporter Scott Baio has a bone to pick with Starbucks

AP

Actor Scott Baio has publicly endorsed Donald Trump.

Over the weekend, Baio went to the coffee chain to grab his wife a drink and told the cashier his name was Trump— hoping to prompt the barista to say the name out loud when his order was ready.

But when the coffee was ready, the actor alleges the Starbucks employee “refused” to speak the name of the presidential GOP front runner out loud.

He took to Twitter to vent about the incident, posting “Got wife a coffee(I've never had a cup)The barista refused to call out name. @realDonaldTrump.” He ended the tweet with the hastag #MustBeABernieVoter.

On Sunday, Baio told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo that he supports Trump because he thinks the businessman is a “straight shooter” who, unlike the other Republican candidates, has “has the will and the nerve to attack and to fight back.”

"I like his proposals on reforming the tax code, building the wall, immigration, repealing Obamacare — dropping the corporate tax rate down, so bring some of that money back that’s out of the country back into the country," Baio said on Sunday Morning Futures.

Now others have followed Baio's move, telling baristas to label their orders "Trump" --and gotten mixed results.

This article was originally published on April 4, 2016


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Scott Baio Claims Starbucks Barista Refused To Say ‘Trump’ Name On Order - Recipes

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

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.

"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.)"

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.

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.


Watch the video: Trump: Maybe we should boycott Starbucks? (January 2022).