Video from MAC on Starbucks OC

[daniel2002p]

I happen to agree with this gentleman ,we (as in legal gun owners) are doing this to ourselves.
I don't think I've seen this posted yet but if it has, my apologies.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=3OVrXF-NB0E[/youtube]

--Daniel

[Maxwell]

I fully agree. In my home it is "my house my rules." This is their business and these are their rules. Starbucks has always treated us, the lawful gun ownership crowd, with respect. It is well past time to do the same to them and let them out of this political debate.

Bottom line is follow the golden rule. If you drag someone into a battle you may not like the end result.

[K.Mooneyham]

There is no "we" in that statement that includes me. Sorry, but I refuse to be tarred with that brush. And that goes for a lot of the folks on this forum, I'm certain of that. I agree that a private business can do what they want with their establishment. But I'm also not one of the folks who felt it necessary to go to Starbucks with my AR or AK and "scare" all the liberal-progressive types.

[The Annoyed Man]

There is no "we" in that statement that includes me. Sorry, but I refuse to be tarred with that brush. And that goes for a lot of the folks on this forum, I'm certain of that. I agree that a private business can do what they want with their establishment. But I'm also not one of the folks who felt it necessary to go to Starbucks with my AR or AK and "scare" all the liberal-progressive types.

I don't feel particularly tarred by it, because I understand that he is using the editorial "we." I'm not an open carrier for the sake of being in anyone's face either. If I openly carry a firearm, it is because at that moment, that firearm is being used for a purpose.......to shoot it at a range, to hunt with it, to defend myself, etc. I am not openly carrying it as a fashion accessory or to make a statement. I carry one at all times because I can, but that doesn't make it everybody else's business.

[rotor]

Everyone says a private business can do what they want but that is not true. They can't discriminate against you by your race or sex or whatever else there is now. If their bathrooms are public they have to allow access. Handicap parking. All of those are required.True, they can make the place a gun free zone if they want but there are some issues that they can't do even though they own the place. I don't think any business should be placed in the center of a political battle but Starbucks CEO has placed himself there before with his progressive philosophy. I do think that people exercising their constitutionally protected rights should not be discriminated against. I also think that we all have to act with good taste and not purposefully try to harm a business that is caught in the middle of a debate. But once a company declares itself as a foe of my rights I personally will not spend my hard earned money on their products.

[Maxwell]

Rotor,

While there are anti-discrimination laws in place as a business they have the right to refuse service to anyone. However that is not what Starbucks is doing. They respectfully asked for customers to cease open carry of firearms in their business. While I do not open carry I feel that some of those that did walk into their local Starbucks with a rifle on their back, legally I give you (I hope so anyway), most likely did so as a political statement and that is what Starbucks does not want. They do not want open carry and they do not want protests either.

They tried to stay out of the debate by walking a fine line but some members of both sides went too far. Now they have had to publically ask to be removed from the debate altogether. You have the right to respect that by not open carrying in their locations or by withholding your business from them. You also have the right to not respect their request at all though I, and I am sure many members of this forum, hope that you do respect their request in some form. Either way that is a choice you get to make.

While I am not a regular customer of Starbucks their request will not change my buying habits.

Max

[rotor]

Rotor,

While there are anti-discrimination laws in place as a business they have the right to refuse service to anyone. However that is not what Starbucks is doing. They respectfully asked for customers to cease open carry of firearms in their business. While I do not open carry I feel that some of those that did walk into their local Starbucks with a rifle on their back, legally I give you (I hope so anyway), most likely did so as a political statement and that is what Starbucks does not want. They do not want open carry and they do not want protests either.

They tried to stay out of the debate by walking a fine line but some members of both sides went too far. Now they have had to publically ask to be removed from the debate altogether. You have the right to respect that by not open carrying in their locations or by withholding your business from them. You also have the right to not respect their request at all though I, and I am sure many members of this forum, hope that you do respect their request in some form. Either way that is a choice you get to make.

While I am not a regular customer of Starbucks their request will not change my buying habits.

Max

I believe their CEO requested no guns in Starbucks, not just open carry. As far as I know they have not posted a 30.06 yet but my presence in a Starbucks with a properly concealed handgun should not in any way cause any problems for their business model. Now what would your response be about Starbucks if they started posting 30.06 signs? I certainly would not carry in Starbucks if that were the case but I wouldn't give them my business either. I understand the 8 ball they were behind in all of this and I don't agree with the open carry position that they put Starbucks in but my point is that public business locations do not have unrestricted rights to bar people from their establishments.

[K.Mooneyham]

Rotor,

While there are anti-discrimination laws in place as a business they have the right to refuse service to anyone. However that is not what Starbucks is doing. They respectfully asked for customers to cease open carry of firearms in their business. While I do not open carry I feel that some of those that did walk into their local Starbucks with a rifle on their back, legally I give you (I hope so anyway), most likely did so as a political statement and that is what Starbucks does not want. They do not want open carry and they do not want protests either.

They tried to stay out of the debate by walking a fine line but some members of both sides went too far. Now they have had to publically ask to be removed from the debate altogether. You have the right to respect that by not open carrying in their locations or by withholding your business from them. You also have the right to not respect their request at all though I, and I am sure many members of this forum, hope that you do respect their request in some form. Either way that is a choice you get to make.

While I am not a regular customer of Starbucks their request will not change my buying habits.

Max

I believe their CEO requested no guns in Starbucks, not just open carry. As far as I know they have not posted a 30.06 yet but my presence in a Starbucks with a properly concealed handgun should not in any way cause any problems for their business model. Now what would your response be about Starbucks if they started posting 30.06 signs? I certainly would not carry in Starbucks if that were the case but I wouldn't give them my business either. I understand the 8 ball they were behind in all of this and I don't agree with the open carry position that they put Starbucks in but my point is that public business locations do not have unrestricted rights to bar people from their establishments.

If they were to post proper 30.06 signs, I would not enter their establishment; that would make it obvious that they would not want my business. The point of concealed carry is that it is concealed. Starbucks has no way of knowing who is carrying in one of their locations unless they see the firearm. I refuse to believe that a corporation that large, with as many lawyers as undoubtedly work for them, could not research the proper method in each state to bar ALL carry into their locations if that was the intent. Not saying I 100% agree with their CEO, as I most certainly do not, just that I do understand that he is trying to keep the bulk of his company's patrons coming in. And, unfortunately for those who legally carry firearms, we are assuredly in the minority in that regard.

[bizarrenormality]

Duplicate topic already running here http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=69068" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gringo pistolero]

There is no "we" in that statement that includes me. Sorry, but I refuse to be tarred with that brush. And that goes for a lot of the folks on this forum, I'm certain of that. I agree that a private business can do what they want with their establishment.

I agree they should be able to, but they don't under current law. They should have the same right to ban openly worn firearms as they do to ban openly worn religious symbols or clothing.

And a business should have equal right to ban concealed firearms, concealed religious symbols/clothing, concealed body art, etc. Either what's under our clothes should be none of their business, or they should be able to have rules about anything and everything we have hidden under our clothes.

[tommyg]

It was a mistake to swarm Star Buck with guns. It would have been better to
quietly buy from Star Buck to off set the attempt to boycott. Now the fools
that don't like guns will try to go to another major company and threaten to boycott

If the company gives in and put up valid signs then never buy from them again

If the company does not give in and the company takes a neutral stand then Buy Buy from them
this will offset the losses from the boycott. Then the boy cotters will give up and the company profits from the boycott

[EEllis]

Everyone says a private business can do what they want but that is not true. They can't discriminate against you by your race or sex or whatever else there is now. If their bathrooms are public they have to allow access. Handicap parking. All of those are required.True, they can make the place a gun free zone if they want but there are some issues that they can't do even though they own the place. I don't think any business should be placed in the center of a political battle but Starbucks CEO has placed himself there before with his progressive philosophy. I do think that people exercising their constitutionally protected rights should not be discriminated against. I also think that we all have to act with good taste and not purposefully try to harm a business that is caught in the middle of a debate. But once a company declares itself as a foe of my rights I personally will not spend my hard earned money on their products.

Personally I don't go to starbucks but I think your claim of discrimination is a bit off the mark. If they refused to allow gun owners in then that would be one thing. Instead they are asking everyone to follow the same house rules. By definition that isn't discrimination. It isn't a seeing eye sig or a wheel chair glock they are guns. Yes you have a right to carry but you also have a right to be barefoot and they can also ask you not to come in for that.

[rotor]

Everyone says a private business can do what they want but that is not true. They can't discriminate against you by your race or sex or whatever else there is now. If their bathrooms are public they have to allow access. Handicap parking. All of those are required.True, they can make the place a gun free zone if they want but there are some issues that they can't do even though they own the place. I don't think any business should be placed in the center of a political battle but Starbucks CEO has placed himself there before with his progressive philosophy. I do think that people exercising their constitutionally protected rights should not be discriminated against. I also think that we all have to act with good taste and not purposefully try to harm a business that is caught in the middle of a debate. But once a company declares itself as a foe of my rights I personally will not spend my hard earned money on their products.

Personally I don't go to starbucks but I think your claim of discrimination is a bit off the mark. If they refused to allow gun owners in then that would be one thing. Instead they are asking everyone to follow the same house rules. By definition that isn't discrimination. It isn't a seeing eye sig or a wheel chair glock they are guns. Yes you have a right to carry but you also have a right to be barefoot and they can also ask you not to come in for that.

Starbucks CEO said he doesn't want people with guns in his stores. I don't know what you mean by everyone follow the same house rules. The stores are not posted yet (I assume) but he said he doesn't want guns in his stores. I don't go to Starbucks either and I think it is discriminating if they ban legal law abiding citizens from carrying concealed. Can they legally do it, yes. My original point was that stores do not have universal power to ban people. If you were barefoot and they had posted no shoes no service I am sure you could still use their restrooms (public places), but they might not sell you their coffee.

[JKTex]

I'm surprised to see this topic come up and have so many reasonable and level headed opinions. That's got to be a first. Thanks to Rotor though, there's still a reminder not everyone is always on the same page.

Starbucks was forced into a corner and not by the anti gun folks, by the mall ninja, open carrying, in your face, "I have special rights", "my rights are better than your rights" crowd that did it, and did so proclaiming to be doing it on behalf of law abiding gun owners, without clarifying, not the responsible grown up gun owners. We're carrying on as usual feeling bad that Starbucks was forced into a situation to basically make a public statement to appease the anti's.

[EEllis]

Starbucks CEO said he doesn't want people with guns in his stores. I don't know what you mean by everyone follow the same house rules. The stores are not posted yet (I assume) but he said he doesn't want guns in his stores. I don't go to Starbucks either and I think it is discriminating if they ban legal law abiding citizens from carrying concealed. Can they legally do it, yes. My original point was that stores do not have universal power to ban people. If you were barefoot and they had posted no shoes no service I am sure you could still use their restrooms (public places), but they might not sell you their coffee.

It's, by definition, not discriminating when you ask everyone to do the same thing. If he had special rules for some people, like no armed black folks or no gun owners regardless if they carry, then that would be discrimination. You just don't like the rule they are talking about having. Not the same thing and it minimizes real discrimination when you lump it together like that.