Starbucks and White Guilt

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

They were arrested because they refused to follow a lawful order from the police.
It is pretty simple, actually.
Do what the police say and things will go a lot better for you.

True. I'm not arguing against those facts.

The point I'm trying to make is this... if they were two white men, the odds are rather high that no one would have asked them to leave in the first place. I've been in a business establishment waiting on someone far longer than those guys were, and I have never been asked to leave. Even the man they were meeting explained that he has chosen to meet clients at Starbucks many times, and those clients didn't always order anything. The only difference between those who were never approached and asked to leave and the gentlemen who were asked to leave is... their skin color.

I hung out in a Books&Company for over 4 and a half hours before. I wasn't purchasing anything. I was seated and reading a book (that I didn't buy) the entire time. No one approached me about purchasing anything, nor was I asked to leave. No one bothered me at all. But dollars to doughnuts, if I were black, it is more likely that I would have been asked to make a purchase or leave.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

It was a good gesture on their part. Some would have milked it for a lot more.

Yeah, you're right about that. These were men just wanting to meet to with another to discuss business. Most likely, they realized rather quickly that they could comply, or take a stand and prove a point. I don't think they were hurting for money. They chose to make the point.

It's kind of like when Mrs. Rosa Parks was asked to give her seat up to a white person and stand in the back of the bus. At the time, it was perfectly legal for a bus driver to demand such a thing. She took a stand... by refusing. She was arrested and fined as a result. And her refusal sparked a civil rights campaign to abolish unchristian and inhumane segregation laws.

By refusing to comply, these men brought to light how racism is still alive and well in the United States, and how racists will use the law, when they can, to harass minorities.

[Aquila]

I've hung out in various businesses for various amounts of time for various reasons without making a purchase. And as an adult, I've never been asked to leave. I remember a Taco Bell asking me to leave once when I was in high school. But that was because we were goofing off in the lobby. I think that if I were black, I'd have been asked to leave various establishments far more often.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's kind of like when Mrs. Rosa Parks was asked to give her seat up to a white person and stand in the back of the bus. At the time, it was perfectly legal for a bus driver to demand such a thing. She took a stand... by refusing. She was arrested and fined as a result. And her refusal sparked a civil rights campaign to abolish unchristian and inhumane segregation laws.

Oh good grief. Rosa Parks, these men are not.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. I'm not arguing against those facts.

No, you're just making big assumptions. The same kind of assumptions you don't like others making about the black men. You're ASSUMING the employee and manager are racists and bigots. You're ASSUMING these men were targeted because of their skin color. You're ASSUMING a lot.

The fact is we haven't heard from either the employee or manager as to why the men were asked to leave.

What you criticized me for doing, assuming the worst of the black men, you're doing the same with the employee and manager --- assuming the worst.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I hung out in a Books&Company for over 4 and a half hours before. I wasn't purchasing anything. I was seated and reading a book (that I didn't buy) the entire time. No one approached me about purchasing anything, nor was I asked to leave. No one bothered me at all. But dollars to doughnuts, if I were black, it is more likely that I would have been asked to make a purchase or leave.

I have to disagree, sorry. Also, you cannot compare Starbucks to a bookstore. I looked up Books & Co, because I was pretty sure it was similar to the bookstores we have here. Most bookstores in general have seating areas where you're allowed, and in some even encouraged (Books & Co included) to sit and read. Books & Co even promotes book clubs, like a couple of bookstores here do.

Bookman's is a local bookstore I like. They have a large seating area and free wifi for people to use.

So I really doubt anyone, even a black person, would be told to leave from Books & Co or most any other bookstore.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. I'm not arguing against those facts.

The point I'm trying to make is this... if they were two white men, the odds are rather high that no one would have asked them to leave in the first place. I've been in a business establishment waiting on someone far longer than those guys were, and I have never been asked to leave. Even the man they were meeting explained that he has chosen to meet clients at Starbucks many times, and those clients didn't always order anything. The only difference between those who were never approached and asked to leave and the gentlemen who were asked to leave is... their skin color.

I hung out in a Books&Company for over 4 and a half hours before. I wasn't purchasing anything. I was seated and reading a book (that I didn't buy) the entire time. No one approached me about purchasing anything, nor was I asked to leave. No one bothered me at all. But dollars to doughnuts, if I were black, it is more likely that I would have been asked to make a purchase or leave.

You do not know that.
You are assuming that because it fits what you want to believe.
The only way to know that would be for the Starbucks employee who made the call to the police to be interviewed.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

No, you're just making big assumptions. The same kind of assumptions you don't like others making about the black men. You're ASSUMING the employee and manager are racists and bigots. You're ASSUMING these men were targeted because of their skin color. You're ASSUMING a lot.

The fact is we haven't heard from either the employee or manager as to why the men were asked to leave.

What you criticized me for doing, assuming the worst of the black men, you're doing the same with the employee and manager --- assuming the worst.

According to Starbuck's CEO, Kevin Johnson, Starbuck's prides itself in being not only a coffee shop, but they enjoy being a community hub for conversation, business, meetings, networking, etc. Starbuck's primarily delegates the authority to request that people leave the store to each individual store manager. However, the general practice is only to request that individuals leave if they are causing a disturbance. This is because so many do use Starbuck's as a meetup to do business. The employee that made the call to police was fired because, based on eye witness accounts (both customers and employees) and video, the gentlemen weren't being a disturbance, and were just waiting on someone to discuss real-estate business. When the employee was questioned as to why these men were singled out, seeing that they posed no disturbance, the employee offered no answer that agreed with the company's philosophy. And so, the company decided to fire the employee amidst growing public condemnation.

Now, no doubt the company has asked the employee not to discuss the issue, seeing that the employees actions were deemed discriminatory, since the employee could offer no valid reason for singling them out and asking them to leave. If the employee were to speak, and say something that could be misconstrued to affirm discrimination, and the company face backlash, the company could sue them. So, this is why we're probably not hearing from the employee.

Since Starbucks prides itself as being a place for the local business community to meet up, do business, communicate, etc., in addition to being a coffee shop, the employee's actions are unjustified seeing that the men weren't causing a disturbance. The employee's actions fly in the face of the company's philosophy and public image. Starbuck's WANTS the business community to feel comfortable meeting up to discuss business with clients in their stores. The employee's actions were therefore counter the company's vision and image.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The employee that made the call to police was fired because, based on eye witness accounts (both customers and employees) and video, the gentlemen weren't being a disturbance, and were just waiting on someone to discuss real-estate business. When the employee was questioned as to why these men were singled out, seeing that they posed no disturbance, the employee offered no answer and became defensive. And so, the company decided to fire the employee.

Assumptions. Please post the source for the bold. I have read that the employee quit.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Now, no doubt the company has asked the employee not to discuss the issue seeing that the employees actions were deemed discriminatory,

Assumption.

Originally Posted by Aquila

since there employee could offer no valid reason for singling them out and asking them to leave.

Assumption.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If the employee were to speak, and say something that could be misconstrued to affirm discrimination, and the company face backlash, the company could sue them.

Assumption. Also, unless there's an NDA the company couldn't sue the former employee. Free speech and all.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, this is why we're probably not hearing from the employee.

Assumption.

Originally Posted by Aquila

the employees actions are unjustified seeing that the men weren't causing a disturbance.

Assumption

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Watch the whole thing, this man speaks the truth:

Two Black Men Arrested for Acting Entitled At Sta…:

Aquila, did you watch this?