Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot

Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/3/2010 10:20:29 PM)
Starbucks asks not to be center of gun debate First off, my only problem with Starbucks is that they burn their beans (that's why the coffee tastes the same no matter where you go). As a company though, they have a certain "liberal" reputation. Maybe it is just the stereotype of their customers rubbing off (though I'm one of their customers too, on an afternoon when my ass is just dragging), but it is there. This reputation seems to have led to the stores being chosen for open carry of guns demonstrations and a resulting move by anti-gun activists to demand the chain ban guns in their outlets. Starbucks wants no part of it. It seems like a smart corporate decision to me. Should they take a stand?

thompsonx -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/3/2010 10:57:59 PM)
quote: The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, launched a petition drive demanding that the company "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones." And Wednesday, that group delivered 28,000 signatures to the coffee giant's headquarters in Seattle. This quote is taken from your cite. Isn't the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence a Republican organization started by a Republican mouth piece for a Republican president? Why is it that the conservative Republicans want to destroy the 2nd ammendment?

eyesopened -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 4:45:23 AM)
I believe a business has the right to allow any legal activity it wishes on their owned property. I think their rights could get murky depending on the language in each individual lease if the stores operate on leased property. What I found interesting in the article is the concept that open-carry is potentially more harmful than concealed carry. I fail to see that logic. I'd much rather be able to see who has a gun and who is reaching for that gun. I have formed the opinion that guns and motorcycles are phallic symbols deep in the psyche of the majority of humans. That could explain why such things are either loved or feared but rarely is there ambivalence. Many male primates use the display of their erection as intimidation, some primates also throw feces. I'm not convinced we have evolved very far.....

Moonhead -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 4:53:25 AM)
I think being able to kill somebody who looks at you funny rather than throwing shit at them is progress, though not necessarily a good sort. Transferring a part of your anatomy's role to a symbol takes a degree of conceptualisation the lower primates don't have, after all. Even chimps need another chimp to whisk up a hand shandy over instead of being able to close their eyes and use their imagination, after all.

thompsonx -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 5:03:54 AM)
quote: Even chimps need another chimp to whisk up a hand shandy over instead of being able to close their eyes and use their imagination, after all. A trip to the zoo might go a long way towards disabusing you of this ignorance.

Moonhead -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 5:47:00 AM)
They can? I stand corrected.

DarkSteven -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 6:17:34 AM)
Rich, they're trying NOT to take a stand but they're being forced to. Either they allow them or they don't, and either way is taking a side. The pro-gun folks are walking in conspicuously armed. Starbucks is hoping that they'll do this for a week or so (and buy a latte while they're there), and then simply quit doing that, point made. If the antigun folks don't stage a boycott, Starbucks won't get hurt too badly (although I imagine a lot of people would leave after feeling uncomfortable around conspicuous gun carrying). If Starbucks were to ban guns, they'd get sued.

mnottertail -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 6:26:28 AM)
at 4 or 5 bucks for a cup of coffee arent they sticking a gun in your ribs anyhow?

thompsonx -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 6:27:12 AM)
quote: If Starbucks were to ban guns, they'd get sued. I think you are right about Starbucks getting sued if they tried...but... in Oklahoma, which has pretty strong "right to carry laws", there are large conspicuous signs stating that the Post Office is Federal property and the carrying of firearms inside the Post Office is a federal crime.

DomImus -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 6:27:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven If Starbucks were to ban guns, they'd get sued. From the article: "Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. And Starbucks said Wednesday that it complies with local laws in the 43 states that have open-carry weapon laws." A private business can restrict the possession of firearms on their property in many jurisdictions. I think it's unfortunate that these groups likes the anti gun (and anti-Constitution) group in the article choose to go beyond the basic issue at hand and make a private business owner a pawn in their argument. They sure seem to be married to free speech aspects of the Constitution. Too bad the rest of document doesn't mean as much to them.

Vendaval -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 6:39:49 AM)
The whole scenario appears to be a publicity stunt targeting Starbucks because it is the largest coffee shop retail chain in the U.S. The company and its employees and customers does not need to be put in the middle of this controversy. Can you imagine what a buzz-kill it would be to be standing in line waiting or drinking your beverage and minding your own business while pro-gun and gun control advocates face off about these issues? Seriously people, go have a political rally in a public place in front of a government building.

TheHeretic -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 6:43:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven If the antigun folks don't stage a boycott, Starbucks won't get hurt too badly I don't think a boycott would last more than a day or two, Steve, even if one were started. Keep in mind, Starbucks sells a highly addictive product. People NEED their latte.

rulemylife -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 7:03:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus A private business can restrict the possession of firearms on their property in many jurisdictions. I think it's unfortunate that these groups likes the anti gun (and anti-Constitution) group in the article choose to go beyond the basic issue at hand and make a private business owner a pawn in their argument. They sure seem to be married to free speech aspects of the Constitution. Too bad the rest of document doesn't mean as much to them. WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!! *WHO* made this an issue and made a private business a pawn in their argument? There would have been no anti-gun demonstrations if there were not the organized attempts by open-carry advocates to make an issue of it.

cloudboy -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 7:34:59 AM)
Maybe their "liberal" reputation came from offering all their employees, even the part time ones, health insurance.

subrob1967 -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 8:22:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Maybe their "liberal" reputation came from offering all their employees, even the part time ones, health insurance. Or maybe it came from they're being headquartered in Seattle Wa...der

subrob1967 -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 8:24:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx This quote is taken from your cite. Isn't the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence a Republican organization started by a Republican mouth piece for a Republican president? Why is it that the conservative Republicans want to destroy the 2nd ammendment? [8\|] Prove Brady is a conservative, show me one conservative they've endorsed in the last 20 years, just one. Brady's about as conservative as Arlen Specter is.

mnottertail -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 8:27:19 AM)
there are no conservatives, and haven't been any that I am aware of, past Ike.

Moonhead -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 9:14:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail there are no conservatives, and haven't been any that I am aware of, past Ike. Nixon?

mnottertail -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 9:20:59 AM)
USPS taken OFF BOOK, US taken OFF THE GOLD STANDARD, ESCALATION OF VIET NAM, among other peccadillos yeah, republican, not conservative--------we find those are two entirely different things and not at all synonomous. Bennie D'Israeli and Stanley Baldwin (with a little David Lloyd George tossed in)

pahunkboy -> RE: Starbucks: A twist on adding a shot (3/4/2010 9:37:29 AM)
but do they use fluoridated water?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875