Current Events > Does this mean homeless black people can hang out in Starbucks now?

(+) Yeah! (+)

and staff can't ask them to leave even if they aren't buying anything?

they should try this now if it gets cold outside
---

Hmm. I'm thinking 350 posts
---

it's time to stop posting.
---

what about homeless asians
---

Trayvon?
---

i really do hope starbucks becomes a hangout place for homeless people, because i dont go to starbucks
---

---

Conflict posted...

You need to get banned already

He'll just hop back on one of his ssj accounts then

They might even be offered free coffee and blankets to avoid appearing racist.
---

Damn, those white homeless people are going to be envious as fuck. At least they still got their white privilege to keep them warm at night.

Absolutely, if those said homeless are privy.

My suspicion is there will be more intimidation and claims of "racism" to employees when something may not be favorable to a patron.
---

<_<
---

Starbucks does like to virtue signal after all.
---

I've thus far avoided this entire outrage cycle. I don't think either side came to the table with good faith but this would be a hilarious unintended consequence.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I've thus far avoided this entire outrage cycle. I don't think either side came to the table with good faith but this would be a hilarious unintended consequence.

Really? The originally twitter story and accompanying video is still up. They're waiting there for some time, and get asked to leave. They explain they're waiting to meet up with some family who are late. The manager then calls the cops who arrive. Most video you'll see follows them getting put in handcuffs and arrested, while all of the surrounding customers try to explain to the police that the arrest is unreasonable, to no avail. The people they'd been waiting for literally show up to watch them get marched to the squad car. The end.

This isn't really a 'both sides' situation. There's the people who were obviously wronged, and there's the police and Starbucks playing blame hot potato, when they're really both at fault.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

there's the police and Starbucks playing blame hot potato

It's not up to the police to decide if the store manager is being a dick, it's private enough property and they have to enforce the law. If they say they were trespassing, they were. This isn't the type of "crime" to allow selective enforcement or officer's prudence. As far as I am concerned here, the police behavior is off the fucking table for discussion. If they're not going to enforce property rights; gun own citizens will. And we all know how that goes . . . I hate to equate a franchised walk-in business establishment to a private residence but ultimately they hate the right to kick out loiterers.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

there's the police and Starbucks playing blame hot potato

It's not up to the police to decide if the store manager is being a dick, it's private enough property and they have to enforce the law. If they say they were trespassing, they were. This isn't the type of "crime" to allow selective enforcement or officer's prudence. As far as I am concerned here, the police behavior is off the fucking table for discussion. If they're not going to enforce property rights; gun own citizens will. And we all know how that goes . . . I hate to equate a franchised walk-in business establishment to a private residence but ultimately they hate the right to kick out loiterers.

It's not their job to execute the wishes of the proprietor without warrant either. If someone is being disruptive, or threatening, or if they're soliciting patrons that's one thing. If police judge a phone call has being frivolous, they can just as easily hit you with a misdemeanor charge for wasting everyone's time, and go back to their business. Or they could mediate and leverage a compromise, which would have been the ideal outcome here if they absolutely needed to do something. Instead they sided with Starbucks, on a dubious complaint call that has more than a tint of racial profiling to it, because non-white people their 'loiter' away their mornings in Starbucks all the time without comment, or being asked to leave.

And they put them in handcuffs, which is even more appalling. None of people involved did so much as raise their voice. They had no reason to believe these people were anything but cooperative. The Handcuffs and perp walk were pure security theater designed to justify the arrest to anyone who didn't know everything that went down, and swing public opinion to the side of the police. I would be livid were I placed in that situation; most people would be being ritually humiliated like that. Instead the dude rolls his eyes to the camera and lets the cops lead him out like a common criminal and actually hold him for like twelve hours. It hits twitter barely an hour after all this and was viral before the end of the day, and if it hadn't been for that video they would probably still be there.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

It's not their job to execute the wishes of the proprietor without warrant either

In this case, a business is similar to a home. Are you telling me police won't remove someone from my house (who is not on the lease) after I tell them to leave and they refuse?

There does not have to be a reason to ask someone to leave. They do not have a right to be on private property unwanted
---

Capn Circus posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

It's not their job to execute the wishes of the proprietor without warrant either

In this case, a business is similar to a home. Are you telling me police won't remove someone from my house (who is not on the lease) after I tell them to leave and they refuse?

There does not have to be a reason to ask someone to leave. They do not have a right to be on private property unwanted

If you think you can discriminate without consequence, youve got another thing coming
---

Blue_Inigo posted...

Capn Circus posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

It's not their job to execute the wishes of the proprietor without warrant either

In this case, a business is similar to a home. Are you telling me police won't remove someone from my house (who is not on the lease) after I tell them to leave and they refuse?

There does not have to be a reason to ask someone to leave. They do not have a right to be on private property unwanted

If you think you can discriminate without consequence, youve got another thing coming

They weren't refusing them service.

If they want to file a discrimination lawsuit I'm sure they can. But it's not the officers' jobs to question store policies or why you want someone off private property.
---

homeless people could always hang out in starbucks. At least people who dress homeless.
---

Capn Circus posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

It's not their job to execute the wishes of the proprietor without warrant either

In this case, a business is similar to a home. Are you telling me police won't remove someone from my house (who is not on the lease) after I tell them to leave and they refuse?

There does not have to be a reason to ask someone to leave. They do not have a right to be on private property unwanted

Businesses cannot legally discriminate though, not since the 1964 Civil Rights act. If Starbucks had a history of asking all loiterers to leave they'd be in the clear. Thing is, they infamously don't. This example is a significant outlier, and the thing that distinguishes the victims from the legions of Starbucks loiterers who sit on their computers for six hours, is the fact that these two men are black.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

Capn Circus posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

It's not their job to execute the wishes of the proprietor without warrant either

In this case, a business is similar to a home. Are you telling me police won't remove someone from my house (who is not on the lease) after I tell them to leave and they refuse?

There does not have to be a reason to ask someone to leave. They do not have a right to be on private property unwanted

Businesses cannot legally discriminate though, not since the 1964 Civil Rights act. There is an expectation that strangers will come there for goods and services. If you were to call the police and ask them to remove someone from the premises, the first thing that officer should do is ask why that person(s) is being forced to leave, and use good judgement in how to proceed.

If Starbucks had a history of asking all loiterers to leave they'd be in the clear. Thing is, they infamously don't. This example is a significant outlier, and the thing that distinguishes the victims from the legions of Starbucks loiterers who sit on their computers for six hours, is the fact that these two men are black.

It's unconceivable that police would have some master list of which companies do what.

The laws would be enforced through suits. If it turns out Starbucks broke the law, they'll be punished.

I can't think of any scenario where in the past, police officers at the scene said "no that's discrimination and you're in trouble now"
---

Capn Circus posted...

It's unconceivable that police would have some master list of which companies do what

It's not the companies that do that. It's the law. Specifically the 1964 Civil Rights Act mentioned in that very post. In exercising their authority, police often take steps to make sure they're not trampling your rights. Being aware of the potential issues is part of how they do their job. Were it determined that this was a frivolous complaint to the police, you might get anything from a warning to a misdemeanor charge.

Capn Circus posted...

The laws would be enforced through suits. If it turns out Starbucks broke the law, they'll be punished.

Starbucks is legally fine. The official stance of the company is that they extend service to everyone and by agreeing to work for them you're also agreeing to uphold that. Mostly this serves as legal protection allowing them to fire anyone who doesn't follow that guidance, which they've already done. I don't see the Starbucks Boycott as being terribly productive, because I'm not aware of a pattern of similar abuses in Starbucks's history as a company.
---