Starbucks Politely Asks Gun Owners Not to Bring Guns into its Cafes

Categories: Chewing the Fat

StarbucksRoast.jpg
Earlier this year, we told you about Starbucks' stance on gun laws. The company allows customers to carry firearms in stores and cafes where local laws allow.

But the stance has, in a way, backfired. Gun-ownership advocates now descend on Starbucks on regular "appreciation days," locked and loaded -- like in July, when 60 gun-toting caffeine junkies arrived at a Sioux Falls Starbucks, touting both their state's gun laws and appreciation for Starbucks allowing them to openly carry.

Just imagine the scene for a few seconds: A café full of customers who have no idea a gun march is headed their way, suddenly surrounded by 60 guns.

My question to Danny Cowan, Starbucks' global communications direction, at the time was, do other customers in the store have the right to know that a gun event is headed their way? He uncomfortably answered, "I can't speak to that." The result, up to this point, is that what started out as a liberal policy on the part of Starbucks has turned into a rallying cry for gun advocates.

After our previous post, one gun advocate, "m1gunr," shared the scene of an event in Seattle in the comments:

"8 Open Carriers were in downtown Seattle today for over 2 hours. We visited 3 Starbucks and walked thru Pike Place Market and hung out for almost an hour, no one was hurt or arrested. We Open Carriers were standing as a group at the SW corner of 3rd & Pike when the "Mom's Group" showed up on the other corner. We must have made them afraid even though I waved at them and invited them over to us. They hustled across the street and down the block away from us."

Maybe the moms were intimidated. Maybe they didn't want to be around guns. Or maybe they had jobs to get to. Regardless, it turned into a show and the main stage was a Starbucks cafe. Three of them for that matter.

Shannon Watts, founder of the gun reform group Moms Demand Action, which formed the day after the Newtown school shootings, pointed out that Starbucks enforces a 25-foot smoking ban around all cafes, but will not take a stance on guns.

The question was posed to founder Howard Schultz, who said, "There's a big difference in the connotation of someone holding a gun and someone holding a cigarette."

Now Starbucks is going half-caf/half-decaf on guns.

In an open letter that will be published in major newspapers tomorrow, CEO Howard Schultz writes:

"Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called "Starbucks Appreciation Days" that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of "open carry." To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners."

However, Schultz is clear "this is a request, not an outright ban."

"Why?" Schultz writes. "Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request--and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on."

My Voice Nation Help
44 comments
jamessavik
jamessavik

I never like their crap-achino anyway.

TexMarine
TexMarine

This will have Chik-Fil-a style results; smart move SBX.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

The only reason they're "politely" asking is because they're afraid those gun-toting wack-nabbits would shoot them dead if they didn't.

CitizenKane
CitizenKane

I suspect Starbucks suits know that the pro gun lobby is both large and wealthy;  they want to keep these customers.  Smart play to position the policy as a "request". 

I am willing to bet that gun activists will largely honor the request and not make public spectacles of Starbuck meet ups !  Unlike the left, who would issue threats, protests, and otherwise amp up their behavior, I am betting gun right advocates will try to respect the wishes of Starbucks.

Can you imagine how the left would react if Starbucks issued a "no open nursing" request ! The feminizes (and their enablers) would be in full gonzo protest mode !








whocareswhatithink
whocareswhatithink

I would prefer to see those carrying guns that those guns I cant see.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

The Observer 50 years ago:

"Just imagine the scene for a few seconds: A café full of customers who have no idea a rights march is headed their way, suddenly surrounded by 60 negros."

pogue972
pogue972

Starbucks has gotten itself into quite a pickle!  I think other big food chains will look at this policy as being a failure and think twice before allowing open carry in their stores.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz So you are saying that the only way anti-gunners are polite is when they are under threats of violence otherwise?

I think you just explained a lot about yourself.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @CitizenKane I think the half measure to try to respect the civil rights to arms crowd is going to backfire and cost them a lot of money.  Gun owners vote with their dollars and will go somewhere else.  Anti-gun lefties will not, which is why they howl so loudly -- they can't conceive of any other recourse.

This is indeed another Chick-fil-a situation.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@CitizenKane I'm on "The Left" and I thoroughly disapprove of women whipping out a tit in public and squirting milk all over the place.  Do it in private.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@CitizenKane 

I am hoping that you are correct on your first wager and suspect that you are right on the money with your second speculation.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

Oh, please.

You're equating the struggles faced by black people in this country for their civil rights with a public corp. like Starbucks not wanting to play host to NRA open-carry tea-parties?

Reaching, phelps, really reaching, here.

CitizenKane
CitizenKane

@everlastingphelps @CitizenKane You might be right;  the conservative blogs that are following this story are not happy with the Starbucks policy....but I still think gun owners will not react in a Chic Fil A fashion; with more protests outside the local Starbucks; rather, a quiet boycott of the Starbuck brand....

I am of the opinion that across small town America this will hurt Starbucks; but not in major market cities like Dallas....

beda50
beda50

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @CitizenKane I so agree!  If absolutely unavoidable, I wouldn't even object to their placing a blanket over the shoulder and the baby so that it doesn't become a public spectacle.  Like overt PDA, some things should be done in private.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @TheCredibleHulk @everlastingphelps Silly me, I thought that the Second Amendment was as important as all the others, including the 14th.  

Keeping and Bearing Arms is a civil right.  Either you support civil rights, or you don't.  Which one is it?  Are you willing to stand up for this civil rights protest, or are you going to be like the millions of people who looked down on negros 50 years ago and decided 20 years ago that they loved them all along once the fight is won?

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @everlastingphelps You said, paraphrasing, "the only reason they are polite is to keep from being shot."  I asked, "so you are saying that they are only polite if someone shoots them otherwise?"

And that's a "far off conclusion?"  Taking your words at face value?

TexMarine
TexMarine

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz you may want to read your previous responses before you accuse anyone of jumping to far-off conclusions.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @everlastingphelps Yes, like Fort Hood.  Guns were banned at Ft Hood, like all CONUS military bases.  Soldiers are only allowed to have weapons and ammunition on designated firing ranges.  The only people armed on military bases are the Military Police, and there aren't many of them.

The Naval Yard shooting was the same situation.  There was an entire company of marines next door with their weapons.  They were trained to handle exactly that sort of situation, and were willing to go handle it, at a point where only three people had been killed.

The only problem?  They had no ammunition, because it was a "gun free zone" by the same EO that disarmed Ft Hood.

TexMarine
TexMarine

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz Guns are banned at Ft Hood.  How can it be years later and you still dont know this?  I guess Cat Fancy didn't update their readers.

TexMarine
TexMarine

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz Only problem is, they aren't CHL or otherwise law abiding gun owners who commit these mass shootings. It's astonishing how easily your narcissism allows you to fall into this trap.

beda50
beda50

@americanvalues @beda50 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @CitizenKane You took a giant leap over the cliff to draw the conclusion that either of us likes guns on a holster.  I believe in gun control.  No one needs assault weapons except the soldier on a battle field.  The right to bear arms, in my opinion, related to a civilian militia at times when the U.S. didn't  have a professional army.  And I'm not trying to take your gun away, I just think we should be sensible about the proliferation of high-powered assault weapons.

We're just offended by a private act that should be between a mother and her child being flaunted in public.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @primi_timpano 

 He didn't say that they didn't have the right, he said it was a poor analogy.

We could compare the respective jet-fuel capacities of teacups vs. F-14's, if we wanted to. That doesn't give that comparison relevance to anything worthwhile in the real world.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @TheCredibleHulk 

Was it perfectly reasonable in 1963?

Still not buying.

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

Equating the right to bear arms with civil rights associated with a person's race, color, creed, or gender is a poor analogy. The later permanent characteristics, e.g., a black person is immediately identifiable as such and this is the person's natural condition.

It is very different to say "leave your guns at home or in the car" than to say "we don't serve blacks."

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @TheCredibleHulk @everlastingphelps And it was perfectly reasonable, 50 years ago, to post a "Whites Only" sign on your business.  Doesn't make it right.

And there's still plenty of racism in police work and the judicial system, especially in sentencing.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @TheCredibleHulk 

There was another reply, here, but livefyre ate it.

It essentially said that I don't agree that these situations are analogous. Starbucks recent request vs. institutional racism in 20th century USA.

Anyway, I find it funny that the ONE area where you do still perceive racism in this country is in the gun control argument.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @TheCredibleHulk 

All well and good, that doesn't ,however, change the fact that you are likening Starbucks perfectly reasonable request to their open-carry customers to the completely unreasonable, widespread and institutional racism that was rampant in this country half a century ago.

Not the same thing - at all. Not even close.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @TheCredibleHulk It's not hyperbole because the two issues are inextricably linked.  Gun Control has been racist through it's entire history on America.  It was the impetus for the Dred Scott decision, it was one of the main tools of the KKK against blacks during Reconstruction, it was one of the boogeymen arguments against the civil rights movement, and it continues today.  When we talk about "getting guns off the streets" people are really saying, "getting guns out of the hands of young black men on the streets."  

Gun Control started out racist, and there is no way the two will ever be separated.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Fred is a master at finding false analogies, like this one, to apply to an argument.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @TheCredibleHulk 

I don't take exception to their fight, only your hyperbolic comparison.

Starbuck's is doing the honorable thing and asking that its open-carry advocate-customers play nice and don't scare off the soccer-mom contingent that tends to be a pretty large part of their day-to-day business.

That is not unreasonable - and also not comparable to the example you used.

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...