Some idiot anti-gun group wants everyone to boycott them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/skip-starbucks-saturday_n_3800127.html
Spazsdad wrote:I don't go to Starbucks but I will tomorrow.
Dugout Dad wrote:I would guess that 95% of Starbucks' employees are liberals, so every time I go in a buy my venti drip, I tell the barista that I am buying their coffee because of their company's pro-gun stance. The look on their face is priceless, worth the $2.25
Spazsdad wrote:DonnieS wrote:Dugout Dad wrote:I would guess that 95% of Starbucks' employees are liberals, so every time I go in a buy my venti drip, I tell the barista that I am buying their coffee because of their company's pro-gun stance. The look on their face is priceless, worth the $2.25
Good point - I will tell the counter clerk the same. (barista means counter clerk in Sicilian)
I thought it meant "one who overcharges for coffee"
Dugout Dad wrote:It took longer than I thought for them to cave in.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/starbucks-guns-policy_n_3945390.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl29%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D377144
PDad wrote:Dugout Dad wrote:It took longer than I thought for them to cave in.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/starbucks-guns-policy_n_3945390.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl29%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D377144
Starbucks has tried to remain neutral in this. Their refusal to ban guns in their stores was never a pro-gun stance - it was an attempt to not take a side by deferring to local laws. I believe their request now for non-LE people to not bring guns into their stores is really aimed at the people that are doing it as a political statement. I think these excerpts sum it up.
The request is being made in part because more people have been bringing guns into Starbucks over the last six months, prompting confusion and dismay among some patrons and employees, Schultz told Reuters in an interview.
...
"We've seen the 'open carry' debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening," Schultz wrote, noting that "some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction," at times soliciting and confronting employees and patrons.
"We found ourselves in a position where advocates on both sides of the issue were using Starbucks as a staging ground for their own political position," he told Reuters.
Anyone have a better way for Starbucks to extricate themselves from the debate?