Posted on Apr 17, 2018
Starbucks Will Close 8,000 US Locations for ‘Racial Bias Education Day’
603
4
5
0
0
0
Posted in these groups: 
Starbucks
Starbucks
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
0
-1
1
This is my understanding of the incident and my comments are based on this understanding.
The Starbucks in question had a policy that restrooms were for customers only. That policy was posted. The two men in question entered the Starbucks and chose not to buy anything. That means they are not customers. That means Starbucks did not give permission to use the restroom. The two men then refused to leave the premises without using the restroom. I have no idea if they were disruptive or not. I have no idea if the Starbucks has experienced a number of problems like theft of bathroom supplies and/or vandalism. I know that the parents of a friend in High School had somewhere between 4-6 rolls of toilet paper and 2-3 bundles of paper towels stolen EVERY day.
Do we as property owners, (yes Starbucks is a property owner) have a legal right to establish terms and conditions for the use of our property. I believe so. I do not know if there is a local ordinance that requires a business to offer public restroom access as a condition of receiving a business license. Assuming there was not, the Starbucks manager, acting as the owner (Starbucks) representative had every right to ask the men to leave the facility. When they refused, the manager did the right thing and asked the police to intervene.
When the police arrived, I have no idea how things went. I do know if the two men did anything other than leave peaceably, they were trespassing. I know that if their reaction was anything other than peaceable departure, I would expect the police to remove them by force, and if necessary, place them under arrest. If someone was on your private property, entered your home and refused to leave until you granted them permission to use the bathroom, what would you expect the police to do?
My expectations as the property owner do not change base on race, gender, ethnic identity, religious affiliation etc. etc. etc.
That said, I will not EVER do business with a commercial establishment that allows customers to use the restroom, if they will not allow someone (not a customer) in need to use the restroom. Just as the property owner has rights, I have rights.
The race of these two people is irrelevant.
The Starbucks in question had a policy that restrooms were for customers only. That policy was posted. The two men in question entered the Starbucks and chose not to buy anything. That means they are not customers. That means Starbucks did not give permission to use the restroom. The two men then refused to leave the premises without using the restroom. I have no idea if they were disruptive or not. I have no idea if the Starbucks has experienced a number of problems like theft of bathroom supplies and/or vandalism. I know that the parents of a friend in High School had somewhere between 4-6 rolls of toilet paper and 2-3 bundles of paper towels stolen EVERY day.
Do we as property owners, (yes Starbucks is a property owner) have a legal right to establish terms and conditions for the use of our property. I believe so. I do not know if there is a local ordinance that requires a business to offer public restroom access as a condition of receiving a business license. Assuming there was not, the Starbucks manager, acting as the owner (Starbucks) representative had every right to ask the men to leave the facility. When they refused, the manager did the right thing and asked the police to intervene.
When the police arrived, I have no idea how things went. I do know if the two men did anything other than leave peaceably, they were trespassing. I know that if their reaction was anything other than peaceable departure, I would expect the police to remove them by force, and if necessary, place them under arrest. If someone was on your private property, entered your home and refused to leave until you granted them permission to use the bathroom, what would you expect the police to do?
My expectations as the property owner do not change base on race, gender, ethnic identity, religious affiliation etc. etc. etc.
That said, I will not EVER do business with a commercial establishment that allows customers to use the restroom, if they will not allow someone (not a customer) in need to use the restroom. Just as the property owner has rights, I have rights.
The race of these two people is irrelevant.
(0)
(1)
Maj John Bell
SPC Jovani Daviu It is customary when giving a down vote to give some of the thinking behind it.
Should I assume that you do not believe that property owners have rights about who uses their property and what non-owners use it for?
Should I assume that you do not believe that property owners have rights about who uses their property and what non-owners use it for?
(0)
(0)
SPC Jovani Daviu
Down vote says it all sir. I have no intention on going back and forth with you. You seem stuck in your ways. So am I. I'm from NYC. It looks like you live on a farm. 2 different worlds. We have lived through different experiences that affect our opinions. I uploaded this article to start a narrative on RP.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SPC Jovani Daviu - Actually, I am a Navy brat, and bi-racial. My mother is a legal Mexican immigrant that became a citizen. My Dad retired to Tucson in 1970, (I was 10) where I got the opportunity to be Mexican child when I was in traditionally white areas of town, and White when I was in traditionally Mexican areas of town. In 1970 Tucson was not a racially tolerant place to grow up. I learned how to use my fists against white kids and brown kids that had a problem with my race and more often than one would think, against adults. I have been thrown out of businesses for being brown and I have been thrown out of businesses for being white.
You have the opportunity to engage in a narrative with me. I will be respectful and not resort to personal attacks. I believe that my argument stands regardless of the race of any people involved. I remain convinced that race played no part in this incident. I suspect that if this was two white kids, it would not have been a blip on the radar.
The owners have property rights. Do we as Americans respect property rights, or not. I personally think their policy is bad business. As I said, if a business will open their restroom to some one who spends their money there, I think it is really bad business and public relations to refuse their bathroom to someone in need who is not a paying customer. Keeping a restroom clean, neat, orderly, and well-stocked is a business expense. People who are not paying customers are not contributing to the bottom line. I respect Starbucks right to make the decision, that doesn't mean its a decision with which I agree.
You have the opportunity to engage in a narrative with me. I will be respectful and not resort to personal attacks. I believe that my argument stands regardless of the race of any people involved. I remain convinced that race played no part in this incident. I suspect that if this was two white kids, it would not have been a blip on the radar.
The owners have property rights. Do we as Americans respect property rights, or not. I personally think their policy is bad business. As I said, if a business will open their restroom to some one who spends their money there, I think it is really bad business and public relations to refuse their bathroom to someone in need who is not a paying customer. Keeping a restroom clean, neat, orderly, and well-stocked is a business expense. People who are not paying customers are not contributing to the bottom line. I respect Starbucks right to make the decision, that doesn't mean its a decision with which I agree.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google