Sooner or later every progressive organization undergoes a purge of those deemed not progressive enough. This was pretty common in the bad old days of the USSR – you even see it in Red China today – leaders of the communist movement get deposed and sent to the Gulag for not being sufficiently excited about the glorious revolution.
One can never be progressive enough.
At least the New Yorker was honest. The progressive movement in New York City didn’t go after Chick-Fil-A because they sell bland, tasteless fried chicken or offer bad service (because they don’t offer either), they went after them because the owners are Christians and the company operates based on Christian principles (like being closed on Sunday – the horror!). It’s not just NYC though, it’s the same across the country – dissent with the progressive agenda must be crushed – Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, Catholic hospitals and the Little Sisters of the Poor were all targeted because their Christian beliefs stand in the way of the perpetually just-around-the-corner progressive Utopia.
For all intents and purposes, it appears Starbucks is about to get the Chick-Fil-A treatment – not for being Christian but certainly for being insufficiently progressive.
The age of cell phone video makes it very easy to capture significant moments in life, but it also makes it very easy to set someone up. One video from California seems to show an employee of apparent Asian heritage denying access to a black man because he had not purchased anything in the store. A white guy who allegedly who was allegedly given access to the bathroom was produced as evidence of bias – even though there is no video of how the white guy gained access or his provenance.
In Philadelphia the case is even more clear – the guys were asked to leave several times before the police were called – and all it would have taken for this situation not to have happened (in either case) would have been the purchase of a single cup of coffee.
I mean, you are in a freaking COFFEE SHOP after all.
I have no personal knowledge of whether or not these stores had the policy regarding “customer only” use of the bathroom facilities – but if there are, the onus is on the person walking in the door to know and expect to be asked to abide by those rules. Getting riled up after being informed of the policy is on the person coming to the store, not on the employees, the manager or the company.
You want to pee at Starbucks, buy a damn cup of coffee.
It is just that simple. It is a small concession to make. I’ve bought a pack of gum at places with signs stating, “Facilities for Customers Only”.
Ultimately this Starbucks kerfuffle isn’t about breaking or enforcing a simple store/company rule or #blacklivesmatter (and it should be a footnote about how ridiculous the #blacklivesmatter movement is that it went from protesting cops to protesting Starbucks). This is really about Starbucks being a “thing white people like” and the progressive left’s drive to classify that “like” as “unconscious racism” (a meaningless, idiot term). If white people like something, it must be racist – am I right?
Sometimes social conflict isn’t due to racism, sometimes it is due to the perpetually aggrieved state of progressive assholes.
One thought on “Starbucks in the Dock”
I think a store has the right to require anyone hanging out inside their store to make a purchase or leave. These 2 men were there for a long time and never bought anything. If it was my store I would have done like the manager did and kick out the leeches.