- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2 black guys arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks by 8 cops
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:39 am to REG861
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:39 am to REG861
quote:
No, not really, sorry. He threw out "private property rights" like it was the simple explanation to a very complex situation. I used an example of a situation that undermined the "private property rights" argument. That's not a strawman, that's a valid counter argument.
No, it's not. You suggested private property rights are not an "end all be all," which he never suggested, and then mentioned a scenario which had nothing to do with the context in discussion, which is where the argument regarding private property rights was applied and was totally relevant. It's a textbook strawman.
As it pertains to the conduct of the police in this scenario, private property rights are, in fact, the justification for their response and ultimate actions of forcibly removing the subjects from the store. They weren't refused service.
1
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:50 am to wizziko
quote:
That's completely false. I was at the Starbucks on Jefferson and Freret last Sunday and some girl who was dressed like she just finished a workout came and walked straight to the restroom and didn't order anything
Did you sit there for a prolonged time period? I have zero issue with this.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:56 am to ChewyDante
quote:
You suggested private property rights are not an "end all be all," which he never suggested,
he did suggest that and he's been beating that dead horse in other posts too. Private property doesn't excuse starbucks from overreacting in my opinion. This could have and should have been handled differently, by all parties involved.
Let me get this straight. You think it's appropriate for a business to call the cops on customers, or potential customers, under any pretext because it's private property? What a great precedent for society. Starbucks may have been within its right to enforce its "customers only" policy, but the facts indicate that they prematurely called the police without determining whether the two guys really intended to buy coffee and created a radioactive PR situation for themselves. The customer accounts of people who were actually there all indicate they were doing nothing wrong.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 10:01 am
Posted on 4/17/18 at 9:57 am to Jcorye1
quote:
Did you sit there for a prolonged time period?
how long were they seated there?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:05 am to NIH
quote:
What is this reality? Private property rights?
Yes and no. And the reason it's not as simple is some business owners didn't let black people enter, exercising true blanket discrimination, until well into the color TV era and forced to by the Federal Government to step in.
A Starbucks isn't just "Private Property", it's also a "Public Accommodation." As a public accommodation, the
provisions of the Civil Rights act of 1964 are applicable - thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
The question is whether or not a policy that is not universally enforced can be considered discrimination. Per Legalzoom it can be, but I didn't look farther than that. If (as some stories say) there was a white girl in that same Starbucks as a non-paying customer at the same time those 2 guys got kicked out, this looks even worse.
LINK
Keep in mind this is Starbucks, not the OT Coffee Shop with one location in Baton Rouge. There's video of 2 black guys being led out of a Starbucks by the police and 1 million purple headed white girls willing to line up and say this never happened to them in nearly identical circumstances.
There's also plenty of corporate strategy documents about Starbucks being a "Third place", and even their Twitter handle is some BS about making the world a better place.
Also, since this is Starbucks - from here on out they're in a lose-lose situation. Pulling in $20 billion/year in revenue their best course of action is to get out of the news as quickly as possible. This thing will be settled out of court for some 'undisclosed' amount.
If this were the OT Coffee Shop of Baton Rouge, the best course of action would probably be to stick this out and start pulling in conservative money.
Oh, for scope of where any settlement may end up, here's $600k from Denny's for a waiter ignoring a black family.
LINK
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:06 am to REG861
quote:
Private property doesn't excuse starbucks from overreacting in my opinion.
WTF does this even mean? A business has the right to act like an a-hole all they want, as long as it's not commiting a crime or violating someones civil rights.
quote:
Let me get this straight. You think it's appropriate for a business to call the cops on customers, or potential customers, under any pretext because it's private property
Yes, it is. It is their right to do that unless it violates the things I noted above. A private business is not a public space. Starbucks has no obligation to provide free access to meeting spaces in their stores.
quote:
but the facts indicate that they prematurely called the police without determining whether the two guys really intended to buy coffee
Post these facts, because all we know is that the manager claims that they asked if the two were going to buy anything and the two men said they were not.
quote:
and created a radioactive PR situation for themselves.
Maybe. Or the media created this PR situation, which is something that has happened to many people in many private establishments for a long time. But no, this instance is different!
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 10:07 am
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:17 am to REG861
quote:
Let me get this straight. You think it's appropriate for a business to call the cops on customers, or potential customers, under any pretext because it's private property? What a great precedent for society.
You predilection to ascribe fallacious positions to others in defense of your own preferred narrative makes discourse with you a rather dubious endeavor.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:18 am to SUB
quote:
A business has the right to act like an a-hole all they want, as long as it's not commiting a crime or violating someones civil rights.
many will argue that two people had their civil rights violated here. Starbucks actions come off as potentially discriminatory here. Stupid and unnecessary at best, discriminatory at worst. I don't think it's worth rioting over (and taking it out on some minimum wage worker is idiotic) but they fricked up.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 10:23 am
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:19 am to REG861
quote:
how long were they seated there?
Long enough to ask to use the restroom without purchasing an item. At that point they were attempting to use amenities that are for paying customers without paying for anything. That was the point in which they were noticed. Had the person not attempted to do that, I don't think this would have been a "thing".
I've used the restroom at a few different Starbucks where you have to have a "code" to go to the bathroom, and I did what most normal people would do in that situation. I bought a coffee to get access to the restroom.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:19 am to REG861
quote:
many will argue that two people had their civil rights violated here.
Many will be idiots.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:20 am to REG861
quote:
many will argue that two people had their civil rights violated here.
And they would be wrong, but what's new
Did the Starbucks kick every black person out of the store, or just the two that were loitering and using amenities that are for paying customers?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:22 am to REG861
quote:
many will argue that two people had their civil rights violated here.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:27 am to REG861
I've been told I couldn't use the restroom without buying something at one of those shitty Bourbon Street daiquiri and pizza places before. I didn't bitch about it or say it was discrimination. I ordered a slice of pizza so I could go take a piss. I didn't get mad at the employee who told me I had to buy something first because I understand why such a policy exists.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:31 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
I've been told I couldn't use the restroom without buying something at one of those shitty Bourbon Street daiquiri and pizza places before. I didn't bitch about it or say it was discrimination.
well yea, they also didn't call the cops on you
This was an avoidable situation that should never have escalated into something where 6 cops showed up to arrest someone. Again, how long were they "loitering" for? That makes a big difference. From the timeline I've seen on here, the employees called the police almsot right off the bat without seeing whether or not they were actually waiting on a friend.
This post was edited on 4/17/18 at 10:33 am
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:31 am to REG861
Perhaps we should just be grateful nobody was killed in this scenario; it's happened before.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:33 am to REG861
Goddamn, that's such a great picture.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:34 am to REG861
quote:
well yea, they also didn't call the cops on you
You are making the assumption that when told the restroom was for paying customers he politely apologized and went back to his seat.
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:35 am to REG861
quote:
A private business can’t refuse to serve someone on the basis of race
Can you link where Starbucks did this in this scenario?
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:36 am to REG861
quote:Because he bought a slice of pizza
well yea, they also didn't call the cops on you
I told my story earlier in here
I once tried to use the bathroom at a bourbon street bar during mardi gras
The bouncer physically threw me out the bar as he threatened to skin me alive
Posted on 4/17/18 at 10:36 am to REG861
quote:
potentially discriminatory here.
Page 17 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News