Wednesday, September 18, 2013

This one wins All The Internets.

Want to really sting a Seattle Progressive? Watch how it's done:

Bazinga!
Posted by @
Labels: , , ,

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

I noticed Starbucks doesn't want "Starbucks Appreciation Days" in favor of carrying firearms. It's a shame they didn't also ask the anti-gun crowd not to hold rallies against firearms.

11:14 AM, September 18, 2013
Scott J said...

There's a name I've not heard in awhile. Didn't Cameron work for Liddy way back when?

11:48 AM, September 18, 2013
Tirno said...

@Scott J, Yup, same guy. Does NRA News/Cam and Company these days.

11:49 AM, September 18, 2013
Bram said...

This just in - Starbucks doesn't want to lose either half of their customers.

12:15 PM, September 18, 2013
Tam said...

Bram,

Then they shouldn't have politely asked me to not carry a gun in their store.

I tend to reply politely to polite requests. I will follow their expressed wishes to the letter.

12:28 PM, September 18, 2013
Anonymous said...

It seems like an awful lot of folks in the gun community are twisting themselves into pretzels in order to rationalize continued patronage at Starbucks.

Many are saying out of one side of their mouth that the "rude" OC guys got us to this point (I agree), then they turn around and say, "Well, it's not a ban, so I'm carrying." How is not rude to go against the wishes of a proprietor? Starbucks has asked nicely (albeit in a milquetoast fashion). Let's give them what they want.

- Drifter

2:08 PM, September 18, 2013
Ed said...

If I lived in an open carry state, then this would be all the more reason for me to carry at Starbucks. Think of it as being black and attempting to order a meal at a "Whites Only" lunch counter. I would be "rude".

Since I live in a state that does not allow open carry, this is all the more reason to work to getting open carry to be allowed by the government. In the meantime, I will continue to carry concealed into any Starbucks, but would really want Dunkin Donuts coffee instead.

4:15 PM, September 18, 2013
Anonymous said...

OK, let someone put up a "Whites Only" sign at a lunch counter today.
I'm white and I'll stay away on principle and I'll bet most people would.
If Starbucks was the ONLY place to buy coffee, it would be different, but they're not.

5:11 PM, September 18, 2013
mikee said...

Don't ask, don't tell, don't care, actually, is the Starbucks new policy.

They changed nothing, except for the CEO asking politely that his store brand name not be linked to political causes through open-carry protests by one or more persons in his stores.

This action by Starbucks parallels exactly my local credit union, which posted a red circle with crossbar over a pistol silhouette on their front door some time back. This being Texas, the signage was not the legally-mandated "no guns" sign required to stop legal concealed carry into the premises.

I asked the manager about it, and she said, "Yes, the building facilitis supervisor requires us to put that up, and every other CHL holder that works here asked me about it today already."

So I learned that my credit union has carrying CHL employees, anyway.

The CHL carriers know that sign, like the CEO letter, is meaningless. Open carry is invited to continue under local law in Starbucks, because the CEO has said he isn't instituting any policy against it. And the anti-gun fools think something was done.

Win-win.

5:22 PM, September 18, 2013
Anonymous said...

Used to bike past the Starbucks plant enroute to my office; something always smelled burnt. The coffee tastes burnt. Haven't been in a Starbucks in years, can't imagine going into one, absolutely no reason. As to the issue, they just gave in to Seattle libtard philosophy.
MACVS2

5:34 PM, September 18, 2013
Tam said...

mikee,

"The CHL carriers know that sign, like the CEO letter, is meaningless. Open carry is invited to continue under local law in Starbucks, because the CEO has said he isn't instituting any policy against it. And the anti-gun fools think something was done."

Watching gun owners convince themselves that a scoop of shit tastes like strawberry banana has been the most amusing part of the day.

Diagram the following sentence for me, please: "That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas."

Can you show me the part where it says "openly"? Or "while linking to political causes"?

And I don't know what the law is in your state, but they can put up all the "gunbuster" "30.06" signs they want and it has no force of law in Indiana. But if you politely ask me not to come into your premises, I will respect your wishes.

He said, in perfectly readable plain English, "that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores." So I won't. You, of course, may do as you like.

6:24 PM, September 18, 2013
Tam said...

Ed,

"If I lived in an open carry state, then this would be all the more reason for me to carry at Starbucks. Think of it as being black and attempting to order a meal at a "Whites Only" lunch counter. I would be "rude"."

HA!

Rosa Parks didn't live in no "sit wherever you want" state, Ed. That was kinda the whole point.

6:26 PM, September 18, 2013
The real Mr. O said...

Since I don't drink their overpriced, bitter swill, perhaps I'll just drop by the nearest $tarbuck$ occasionally to avail myself of their restroom facilities.

9:24 PM, September 18, 2013
Mulliga said...

For everyone trying to say "Starbucks doesn't mean it! It's not really a ban!" I suggest watching the smarmy video Howard Schultz recorded for employees.

Choice opening quote:

"I'm coming to you today with a very important and timely message. In many states across the country it is actually legal to walk into a private establishment with a gun..."

Just gets worse from there.

10:11 PM, September 18, 2013
Drifter said...

Ed,

I'm going to side with Anon@5:11 in that I'm not going to reward somebody with my business who doesn't respect me.

The difference with Rosa Parks (and where I actually have a problem) is that she, a member of the public, was denied equal access to public services and facilities for which there was no substitute. If you have a choice between patronizing a coffee shop that hasn't asked you to keep your firearm out of their store or Starbucks, what's so special about Starbucks that you wouldn't reward their competition?

What saddens me is that the pro-2A community could slap Starbucks silly with Adam Smith's invisible hand, but 4 out of 5 gunowners are willing to reward Starbucks after their new policy.

11:18 PM, September 18, 2013
Ed said...

The point I was making that the business was attempting to discriminate against a segment of customers, in one case based on race, in the other race-neutral but based on assertion of civil rights.

In my state, open carry of weapons is prohibited, but concealed carry is not and the state Legislature has reserved the right to declare where weapons may be carried or not. I do not patronize Starbucks, so their policy change has no actual effect on me. But if I did, regardless of what Starbucks declares, customers locally will continue to carry concealed in Starbucks and the policy change will not change anyone's behavior in carrying.

What will be worth noting is what Starbucks does in those states where open carry is legal and customers continue to open carry into Starbucks. Will service still be given to those customers acting lawfully? It appears so from the statement by CEO Schultz. If not, then the lunch counter analogy will be completely valid. In the meantime, here is what I expect to happen where I dine:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/burger-king-diner-defeats-would-be-robber-shooting/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/09/18/starbucks-in-the-crossfire-of-the-gun-debate/

1:57 AM, September 20, 2013

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)