CEO of Starbucks speaks out

Originally Posted by carcharias
Like was said earlier, you're underage anyway, Jake, so you have already been denied your right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment places no age restriction, correct?
I can still open or concealed carry on my property, so i still have my right to bear arms. Your parent's place or your own?
Yep, the politicians put those laws in place Yup.
Somehow, though, you are still denied the right to purchase a firearm, yet seem to be defending something not even allowed to you.
I'm defending the 2A because it's important, and i want my future kids to have that right to, to many people DGAF about it so it's gonna get taken away a little at a time until it's gone. It's the 2nd Amendment - it's not going anywhere.
In all seriousness, how terrified are you walking into a Starbucks today?
Me? not very scared, my wallet shrieks and hides whenever i walk in though. lol
You're too young to own a gun which would help you defend your family in a coffee shop, so you must be very scared when waiting in line, right?
Not to scared, but there's always a possibility of something happening, and being unprepared could potentially end peoples lives. Yes, I agree. I usually am aware of people and exits when I walk into any store. Many attacks have been stopped without the use of guns, though.

The Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, says "[to] promote the general welfare... [of] the United States of America." The Starbucks CEO was obviously promoting what he felt was the general welfare of his clientele, albeit begrudgingly.
His choice, but because he did it doesn't mean i have to. Exactly, in general. Specifically, he runs the business so he can do whatever. Therein lies a choice to either patronize his establishment or not.
But let's say the Constitution is to set up for a country, not an individual, eh? K….
But was it? The constitution was set up so the people could have individual freedom. It was for argument's sake, if someone were to claim here on TW that it sets up a governing body. The Constitution has individual's rights built-in, but other politician's of the time wanted to get out a Bill of Rights for more clarification. The BoR is fluid and can have things added and/or subtracted.

How'sza'bout that 9th Amendement in the Bill of Rights, though, Jake? If your rights trample my rights, then who's right?
If that happens then either you leave or ask the other person to leave. I agree, and the CEO has asked gun-toting folks who open carry to leave his establishment.
(btw, I love finding that a number of folks who are anti-government turn quickly to a government-drawn document - not saying that's you since I don't know your stance, this is just some funny quirk I've noticed)
There's a big difference between the current GOV. (which i don't agree with) and Turning to the GOV. Document that was written so we could have the freedom and rights that the current GOV. is trying to take away.We feel differently on what you said here, but I see what you're saying.Keep in mind that there was still "politics as usual" going on when our country was founded, and there were some in the gov't then who felt the way you do now.Our country was founded on freedom from British rule, and settled on freedom from religious oppression.
Crazily enough, it was the precursor to all, the Declaration of Independence, which said "all men are created equal." Remember, we all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" People have a right to be happy while getting a Starbucks, and if the majority feel it's taking away their rights that a minority is brandishing something that scares them
Yep.
Brandishing? Open carry is not brandishing. You're correct - wrong choice of words. "Exhibiting" might be more appropriate.

Brandish:
wave or flourish something,as a threat or in anger or excitement.
then see your bold letters above (about putting others ahead of ourselves). Kinda like "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service."
And that's the stores right. Yes, so it's Starbucks' right to refuse service on something as minor as "no shirt.".
Which document trumps the other, btw?
The constitution and bill of rights trumps all other documents. What about the Declaration of Independence, which came before both documents and is the reason we broke from England? People are no longer created equal? Those words weren't in the BoR or the Const, so people are no longer granted those rights?
Or do we only use the things that benefit us, and deny others the right to something they also are born with because it's against our own belief?
we shouldn't "deny he right to something they also are born with because it's against our own belief" if it will cause less freedom.
I.E. i'm pro gun, Joe isn't, It gives people more freedom to keep guns legal then to make them illegal. That's only opinion. Some people could argue that more freedom is given without the oppression guns might bring. Guns don't solve freedom issues nor does ownership mean a population is free. Guns simply aid in thwarting people who may take away what we perceive our own freedom to be. Maybe by "freedom" what you mean is the "right to have a choice." And it all comes back around.... you have a right to patronize Starbucks now or not. He hasn't stopped anyone from owning a gun.

Door swings both ways. There is no winning any debate here for either you or me.

 

Starbucks clearly wants to take away our 2A rights and anyone who visits their stores are idiots

 

Troll, or total lack of reading comprehension.

 

Not bad

Not bad at all

 

What makes this country so great is that freedom and liberty applies to all people. It allows that business owner the right to decided whether or not if he want to allow firearms on his business property. Since we are on another Mans personal property that being residential or commercial, we need to respect his policies. From time to time I like to get a cup of joe from star bucks. This change in policy will not change my view on the company. As long as my rights are not infringed upon, preventing me from owning a gun, keeping it in my home, or walking down the public street, then we are fine.

There is an interesting debate going on right now about a bar owner kicking a bunch of transsexuals out of his business. The bar owner had to pay a $400K fine and is being sued by the transsexuals. If you turn the chess board around and look at this from the perspective of the bar owner, he should have the right to refuse service to anyone right, since it is his business. The same goes with carrying a gun on to the property.

 

Oh come on people we are going to open gunbucks thee pro gun coffee shop that serves such favorites as bacon and bullet omelet, sausage and p-mag soup and let not forget Oz's suggestion of taste of 'Mericuh with all your favorite flavors

 

Throwing a person out because of who they are is different than asking people not to bring an item into a business.

 

You need to check yourself, buddy. I know tensions run hot and heavy in a thread with a topic like this, but I won't stand around and be silent while someone uses a tense incorrectly. You should have written "is an idiot."

 

I saw that afterwards but didnt want to edit

 

...sounds like starbucks is tired of being caught in the middle of the war... can't say i blame them for that, ...they are a business, and like most businesses probably want a non-intimidating where their customers feel welcome...

...the thing is, the only reason folks have been OCing there is to provide counterbalance to the relentlessness efforts of the anti-gun zealots who have been trying to coax companies into enacting overarching policies banning guns in their establishments...

the anti-gun zealots are the one's responsible for igniting the controversy in the first place... none of the OCing activism would be going on if it weren't for the anti-gun zealots never-ending initiative to convert more real estate into gun-free-zones...

 

kind of like the Oregon cake shop that had to close and is being sued for denying a gay couple cake hahaha

 

Mike

Seriously? That's screwed up, it should get thrown out. (they have the right to deny anyone service)

 

this is true. but you can’t go so just because they are gay, and if thats why then yes they are in the right to sue.

 

That's screwed up, it's his business he can do whatever the f he wants.

 

If Starbucks can ask me to leave my gun in the car, then the cake shop can ask those gay people leave their homosexuality in their car too

 

I'd be very concerned if someone who wasn't an LEO had a gun in my Starbucks.

Very...

 

Yawn.

In retort...

 

I dont see anything wrong with this picture, other than the fact that they're drinking starbucks

 

Cannot discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

See Amendment, United States Constitution, #14....