search
top

Starbucks No Longer Wants Our Business

I was willing to go out of my way to throw Starbucks business they would not have ordinarily gotten because they were not giving in to the bullying by anti-gun extremists. Following state law on the matter of guns was fine by me. But Starbucks has decided they no longer want my business, and I will take it back to Dunkin Donuts gladly. Their coffee is better anyway.

I would ask everyone to let Starbucks Corporate know that they are taking their business to competitors. I completely understand that Starbucks wants out of this debate, and that’s fine, but if they think they can extricate themselves from the debate by appeasing a small minority of insufferable extremists, and telling the rest of the 6 million (and growing) people in the United States who are licensed to carry firearms they don’t want their business, I can still vote with my wallet.

Also, understand this: it won’t stop with Starbucks. The gun ban extremists will go company by company, bullying each of them into ensuring those who exercise their Second Amendment rights are relegated to the status of second class citizens. We have to be prepared to take our money elsewhere, and mean it. If Starbucks does not quickly reverse this policy, I’m done with them. I won’t spend another dime there. I encourage everyone else to do the same, and don’t be quiet about it. We have to make this epic.

105 Responses to “Starbucks No Longer Wants Our Business”

  1. After seeing the announcement, I’ve promptly deleted any positive posts, comments, or photos related to my former appreciation of Starbucks. It’s fine they don’t want my business.

  2. Ian Argent says:

    Wimped out even with the “request.”

  3. “Dear Customers,
    Today was Constitution Day, but we don’t want your business if you actually enjoy an enumerated right.

    Thanks and sod off”

    • Dave says:

      So by your same line of thought, if your run into a starbuck using profane language and being verbally agressive towards the staff, Starbucks must not respect the first amendment.

      We live in a civilized society, some people need to reminded of that – and today they were.

      • Patrick H says:

        Totally different situations. Being verbally abusive is different than just walking it peacefully with a gun and not jamming it into somebody’s face.

        • David says:

          But, by CapitalistPig’s statement. Verbally being an ass is protected by the first amendment so anyone who does not like being called names or being verbally poked must hate the first amendment.

          You guy are doing nothing more than putting a negative light on all gun owners with these foolish little coffee shop rallies. You made it a point to pull Starbucks into this mess and they’re saying “we don’t take sides and we don’t want these media events held in our stores”

          • Patrick H says:

            Yes the are both protected, but again they are different. Being verbally abusive would be like walking around and sticking a gun in peoples faces. That rarely happen, and only by a minority of people. So they are punishing everybody for what some people did. That’s not how this should work.

            Maybe those people doing the rallies weren’t the best thing, but this policy isn’t going to change. Notice that they aren’t banning open carry- so these people will just keep doing it. And it won’t placate the antis either.

            Remember which side you are on.

          • That is not my line of thought at all. Being verbally abusive would would be more akin to menacingly waving a gun around in the store.

            The timing of the announcement sucked. It would have been a much wiser policy move if they had asked that customers seeking to use a location for a political event first request permission from management.

            I also reject your “you guys” sentiment. I have never open carried in a Starbucks. I am insulted by the CEO’s mealy mouthed position and the accompanying finger wagging. He is free to decide he doesn’t want weapons in his stores. I am free to vote with my dollars.

          • Sebastian says:

            Keep in mind that in Arizona, OC is normal an accepted, and long has been. It’s a different ball of wax here in Pennsylvania.

            • I do try to keep OC sensitivity in mind (now), but I don’t appreciate having other gun owners pounding the table against a normal and accepted right I get to enjoy. By eating our own, we do the work of the antis, while threatening the rights of those in freer states.

              I have previously bought coffee at my local Starbucks, as a small gesture to offset the boycotts. I am not advocating a boycott, but I won’t help Mr. Schultz collect his bonus this year.

              I sincerely hope my fellow gun owners will recognize there are bigger issue than coffee shops and that they will reject the stench of collective responsibility.

              That said, we all have a responsibility to “don’t be a (jerk)” when carrying.

        • Patrick says:

          “National Starbucks Appreciation Day” was not just walking in peacefully with a gun and buying a cup of over-priced Joe. It was placing a private business into the middle of a heated national political debate.

          We have to recognize that this was not an innocent affair. Starbucks is not over-reacting. If anything I am surprised at their restraint.

          Gun activists intentionally used their business to force our political ends, against their consent. People have been going to Starbucks while carrying for a long time, and the company could care less. Now the care because we used them and forced them to take a position.

          Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

          • Patrick H says:

            Well anti-gunners were also using Starbucks the same way.

            I’m not saying I support the original SADs. But blaming gun owners is the wrong move here.

            • Patrick says:

              Strawman cometh.

              Nobody is blaming “gun owners”. I am blaming the people who think drawing unwitting corporations into non-consentual politicking.

              On the other hand, I think we all really do share the blame. I did not stand and call “Idiot” during the run-up to this. So yes, maybe it is all of our fault.

          • David says:

            You guys were staging media events at these stores complete with interviews, photo ops. You loitered around all day after spending just a few dollars. You really think Starbucks wants this nonsense. They have a business to run, shareholders to appease.

            What you did was nothing more than attention whoring in the stores. I’m actually shocked that Starbucks didn’t kick you all out of there faster.

            • Patrick H says:

              To quote Tam:

              I agree that in-your-face jerks forced #Starbucks to pick a side. But the side they picked wasn’t mine.

            • cavemike says:

              If I remember correctly, it was the anti’s who started this mess. Some one decided that they were not comfortable with an open carrier and launched an attack against people who open carry in Starbucks.

              The open carriers came back with the Starbucks Appreciation Day.

              For what it is worth I will continue to blame both sides of this issue for their stubbornness.

              I will continue to get me fix of pike place with my loosely concealed 1911 on my hip.

          • Sigivald says:

            I also note that their text actually says that “those events” are note welcome.

            Not “we are saying you can’t bring a gun in here”.

            But “open carry events“; you’re right about the neutrality argument – and I still think Starbucks hasn’t said “go away, gun owners”, but “stop trying to involve us in this, Open Carry Guys”.

            I will continue patronizing them when there isn’t better coffee around (ie, on the road), myself.

            • No, they’re being very clear:

              “For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas”

              They don’t want you in the store with a gun. No long guns, no openly carried guns, no CCW. If you have guns they don’t want you in the store.

              This isn’t about open carry. It is about carry.

  4. Miguel says:

    I disagree. This is a cover your butt document more than an open declaration of war against Gun Owners. They are not imposing a thing that I can read off other than trying to stay away from the public eye.

    • Bitter says:

      I would generally agree with that if it were just the document. If that’s all that leaked, that would be one thing. But their middle of the night Facebook & Twitter posts were much more anti-gun owner.

      • ecurb says:

        Could you guys edit the post to include those? Trying to use twitter confuses and enrages me.

  5. Nick Pacific says:

    What did you expect with people walking into their store slinging rifles across their backs? While gun owners liked their policy, they do have other customers, and all these “starbucks appreciation” days did little to encourage the rest of their business. Our people did this.

    • beatbox says:

      Yup. Once again, gun owners are their own worst enemy. I totally saw this coming. What the hell did people think they would accomplish?

      • Rob Crawford says:

        What the hell did those people think they’d accomplish, sitting at that lunch counter where they knew they weren’t welcome!

        • Nick Pacific says:

          There’s a difference between being accepted in a place of business, and rubbing it in everyone’s face by having gun owners swarm a place on a given day open carrying. It’s going to upset other customers who, heaven forbid, might have differing opinions.

          It’s a retail store, they want to maximize their exposure, not have their storefront be coopted into the front line for gunslinger’s rights to open carry.

        • beatbox says:

          The fact that you would make that comparison shows how great the disconnect is. Do you really expect there to be a law mandating that PRIVATE businesses must accept people open carrying?

        • Patrick says:

          Huge difference and the comparison hurts my head.

          Starbucks welcomed any and all. Then a bunch of ‘activists’ forced Starbucks into the politics of a national issue. Starbucks is not asking gun owners to stay away because of who we are, but because what we did.

          Behavior matters. If you act like an idiot and make things difficult on a private business, they will ask you to leave.

          We have real Jim Crow comparisons in many places. This ain’t one of them.

  6. divemedic says:

    I don’t read it that way. From the announcement: “Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. 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.”

    In other words, they don’t want their stores to be the focal point of the debate. They don’t want that “in your face” type of display going on. A few gun owners decided to be dicks about open carry, and this is not the way to win over converts. Now they have forced Starbucks to ask gun owners to stop. Great going, guys: You turned a neutral company into a borderline anti one. Not because they feel guns are bad, but because they feel gun owners are jerks.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      No, because the antis ARE jerks.

    • Archer says:

      That’s how I read it, too. It’s not that they’re anti-gun or pro-gun. They simply don’t want to be a prop or pawn in the debate. They want to be neutral, and I think their statement says as much.

      I’m pro-gun. People I know and like who carry legally are welcome to visit my home. People I know and like who choose not to carry and/or may be anti-gun (i.e. my mom) are also welcome. I don’t want a anti-gun rally on my front lawn because it alienates one of those two groups. But if I refuse to host a pro-gun rally on my front lawn for the same reason, does that automatically make me anti-gun?

      It seems to me, taking this Starbucks announcement too personally is not the right thing to do. We as gun rights proponents should try to be more inclusive and less exclusive with our associations and business transactions. (By that I mean: We should certainly support businesses that support us, but we shouldn’t shun businesses that choose to take no position rather than actively supporting us.) And we should definitely be respectful of peoples’ and business’ wishes. Starbucks didn’t ask to be involved in this, but they were*, and now they want out of a situation they were never willingly in. Personally, I think that’s a fair request, especially since they are NOT changing their policy.

      Just my $0.0263 (adjusted for inflation).

      * – The argument could be made either way: either we got them involved because of their open policy, or the antis got them involved with their failed boycott. It’s irrelevant. Starbucks doesn’t want to support OR alienate either side.

  7. Stephen says:

    I gotta say … I can see them trying to appease the anti-gun zealots, and I’ll bet this will be enough for the zealots to cry victory and breathe a sigh of relief they can let the thing drop … but when I read this I don’t see it as a victory for anti-gunners. It’s a polite request, not a promise to call the police or post signs or anything. It bugs me, yes, and I’m done making it a point to go there on Saturday’s, but I don’t know how excited I can get about it:

    “I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? 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. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.”

  8. Gunnutmegger says:

    Looks like a bunch of our “allies” broke the first rule of open carry:

    1) Don’t be a jerk

  9. BornLib says:

    I am not seeing anything at the link.

  10. Asdf says:

    I don’t care what Starbucks does. Unless they plan on having security pat-downs and metal detectors at each door, I will just ignore their rules and carry my gun there anyway. It’s not like they can arrest me anyway.

    • Stephen says:

      The only problem with this outlook is it takes away our leverage. The only leverage we have is our ability to refuse to spend money there. And the more places don’t get punished for being anti-gun, the better it seems to other institutions.

      If every place puts up a sign then the right to carry becomes moot. Which is exactly what our opponents want.

  11. Dave says:

    Starbucks no longer wants to be ground zero for OC rallies where people loiter around the stores for hours without really spending any money.

  12. Jeff says:

    Another ‘victory’ for the open carry morons.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Way to spit on your allies.

      • Dan says:

        With allies like these OC activists I’m not sure we need enemies.

        They apparently can’t tell the difference between winning and losing.

        As far as I can tell there is no problem that can’t be solved by open carrying more aggressively and more often. If someone doesn’t respond the way they expect, the solution is to “normalize” it to them even more!

        I think the rest of us have put up with their ineptitude and fuckups long enough at this point.

    • David says:

      Just like the CA education campaign they conducted.

      • Dan says:

        They normalized the populace so much the state decided no more education was needed, open carry victory!

  13. Kevin Highland says:

    My take on this announcement was, “we are a company that allows the prevailing law of the land. Would y’all please stop putting us in the middle of your argument”.

    Won’t change my starbucks usage at all. Once I can actually obtain a permit here in Illinois, I’ll discretely carry in my local Starbucks when I patronize them.

    • Drifter says:

      That was their OLD position. “For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas…” is pretty clear to me.

  14. BornLib says:

    Just an FYI, McDonalds coffee and Starbucks coffee are pretty much on par with each other.

  15. benEzra says:

    If I read this correctly, they aren’t saying they’re posting their stores. It looks to me like this a plea for voluntary restraint because they are trying to find a way to stay neutral and *not* post their stores.

    Look, gay rights activists have made a lot of well-deserved headway in the last decade by being smart, by being very careful about their public image, and by making straight people comfortable around them and helping them realize GLBT’s are just regular people. How far do you think they’d have gotten if instead of reasoned argument, they crashed conservative church services in large numbers, dressed as provocatively as they could legally get away with, and sat loudly talking GLBT politics in the front row? Because that’s about how people open carrying rifles and shotguns into Starbuck’s in order to make political statements are coming across. Yes, you have a right to carry a rifle, but we are in a war of public opinion here, and being a flaming dumbass about your tactics hurts us in that war.

    Starbucks isn’t lost yet, but it is going to be unless some gun rights activists start looking at the big picture. And if gun owners abandon them over this plea for discretion, then they will probably go ahead and post their stores because they’d have nothing else to lose.

    • Asdf says:

      Actually, you do NOT have a constitutionally protected “right” to walk around with a rifle slung across your back. It simply hasn’t been prohibited by law in some places (yet). The same goes for open carry of handguns – it would be perfectly constitutional to prohibit the practice in PA. I can guarantee you that no Supreme Court, present or at any time in the future, will ever overturn a state law prohibiting open carry of rifles (and handguns, too, provided that concealed carry is legal), especially in urban areas.

      • Skeptical_Realist says:

        Says who? You?

        You might as well say the only reason we have free speech or freedom of Religion is because it “simply hasn’t been prohibited by law in some places (yet)”.

        The Supreme Court won’t overturn open carry bans because it goes out of it’s way to avoid ruling on 2nd ammendment infringing laws in every way it possibly can.

        • Asdf says:

          The 1st amendment has a lot more case law behind it. And states face strict scrutiny with regard to legislation affecting speech issues. You can hold your breath if you wish, but I doubt the 2nd amend e t will ever be held to the same standard.

      • Rob Crawford says:

        “Actually, you do NOT have a constitutionally protected “right” to walk around with a rifle slung across your back.”

        So what does the “to bear arms” part of the 2nd mean?

    • Rob Crawford says:

      “gay rights activists have made a lot of well-deserved headway in the last decade by being smart, by being very careful about their public image”

      Really? So those attacks on Catholic churches by “ACTUP” were my imagination?

      • benEzra says:

        They made progress by ensuring that the immature/impulsive ACTUP types did *not* become the face of the movement. If that crap had gone mainstream in the GLBT movement, they’d have been set back big time.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        Mainstream sentiment on gays, regardless of popular support, is that acting perverse in sacred spaces, such as churches, is a turnoff and a detriment. It would be the same sentiment that we would (should) profess in admitting that while OCing is perfectly fine and should remain legal, it’s not right for ALL areas and circumstances, and common decency should prevail.

        The gay rights movement never really figured that out since I still see their antics going on in churches today. We should have figured it out long ago.

  16. The Noob says:

    I’ve said for a while that this would ultimately happen and the activists have no one to blame but themselves. They pushed it too far. It’s kind of like, when some guys meet a girl that shows even a bit of interest in them, the guy turns it up to 11 and becomes very…overbearing…and then it quickly scares the girl off.

    This is the firearm equivalent of that.

    In hindsight, they should have just played it cool. Maybe they should have waited a few days before calling Starbucks back. Definitely should have held off until at least the 3rd date before introducing Starbucks to their parents. Probably also made a bit of an error by talking about marriage and kids on the 1st date.

  17. ern says:

    Right now, their site isn’t even coming up. They’re getting slammed one way or another.

  18. Jim says:

    Wait a minute. They are not posting “No weapons allowed” signs and they haven’t made their stores gun-free zones. We can still CCW at Starbucks. All the CEO is asking us to stop thrusting Starbucks into the center of the open-carry debate. Starbucks is in the coffee business, NOT the firearm business.

    Like it or not, staging Starbucks appreciation (open-carry) day is probably not good for the coffee-selling business overall. Big corporations go through a lot of hoops to make sure that they don’t make waves. It’s the nature of the beast. Appeal to as many people as possible and piss off as few people as possible (if you’ve never traveled or lived abroad, you do not have the necessary appreciation of the fact that only in America does the customer come first. That is definitely NOT the case everywhere else). We rocked their corporate boat quite a bit by implying a position on them that no large corporation in their right mind would take. It’s too divisive.

    I don’t think the Starbucks CEO asking the people of the gun to stop making his stores the Mecca for the open-carry debate is that out of line. I won’t be championing them, but I won’t stop patronizing them either. Remember, they haven’t caved to the Moms Demand Action’s requests to make their store gun-free zones. That is still a victory for us.

    • Klyde says:

      Mom’s are taking credit for this action by Starbucks.
      They are saying their July and August campaign against Starbucks, resulted in yesterday’s policy change.
      Moms, also, are saying Starbucks did not go far enough and want a total ban for which they plan on continuing their campaign. They intend on expanding their target to other retailers based on Moms’ perception of success.

      The problem is not with Starbucks, the pressure needs to be turned up against “Moms Demanding Actions on Gun Sense”.

      • Jim says:

        The ballot box will tell the real tale. I was very proud of the CO recall effort, and it gives me great hope for next year. If we can beat them back there, regardless of how agitated the Moms Who Need Action get, the politicians will simply not vote their way. Survival is the strongest instinct of them all.

  19. tkdkerry says:

    Pretty much agree with the postings here. Starbucks was trying to follow a ‘live and let live’ policy, which is exactly what we’re trying to achieve, and the OC crowd did indeed take advantage of it.

  20. Patrick says:

    I support open carry.

    I don’t support open carriers who force unwilling and uninterested parties into the political fight. My version of ‘liberty’ does not allow me to force other people to take a stand on my politics, especially if they’d rather stay out of it. The people running Open Carry events need to have better impulse control.

    Starbucks has asked everyone to leave them out of it. They are not banning anything and they are not taking a side in this fight other than, “leave our business and our business name out of your fight, please.”

    How we respond will say more about us than anything ‘they’ could say about us.

    • Aaron says:

      You can’t ‘not take a side’ in this issue. Gun rights are civil rights. The CEO has adopted a soft anti-gun rights stance – that is a soft anti-civil rights stance.

      It isn’t OK and it gives ammunition to the antis.

      • BC says:

        He’s a private property owner telling you that he doesn’t want you setting up a fscking soapbox in his storefront and otherwise dialing the Open Carry Attention Whoring up to 11. Get the hell over yourself.

        • Patrick H says:

          Yes he is a private business owner who can tell us to get the hell out. But we can also complain about it and not give him our money.

          And Aaron is right. People who fight against our rights- even passively- need to be seen as someone that is not our friend. Maybe the tactics are different- convert them instead of actively oppose them- but they still don’t help us.

  21. Andy B. says:

    Being an Old Fart, I couldn’t support a boycott of Starbucks because I’ve never started patronizing them in the first place. A couple of cups of their regular coffee in airports and whatnot, to learn it wasn’t all that good, was about it.

    I just wanted to say I am encouraged by the thoughtful comments on all sides, above. I especially appreciated the “don’t be a jerk” sentiments — however they are applied — as I’ve come around to thinking we need to apply that philosophy in more ways than we have been.

  22. beatbox says:

    How many times do these open carry demonstrations need to backfire before they get the message?

  23. Matt R. says:

    I agree with the level headed comments, like the ones that I am seeing here. It seems that Starbucks is basically saying, “Hey, if you want to have a rally, go on over to the state house”.

    It looks like they are trying to keep the zealots on both sides of the debate from picking fights with one another in their stores.

    –Matt R.

  24. HappyWarrior6 says:

    I don’t frequent Starbucks and find it overpriced for what it is.

    I am not against OC. I have pistol OC’d in Harrisburg at the rally and would do it again.

    That being said, it seems like rifle OC is a poor way of going about demonstrating what we want. No, it should be banned. No, it should not be illegal. Rifles to me are combat weapons. We do not live in a combat zone where instant access to a rifle is needed to survive while walking in public and going about our daily lives. I realize the message that is conveyed… “It’s my right.” However, this is not so much my sentiment as what the average soccer mom processes in her mind when a guy walks into Starbucks OCing a rifle.

    Pistol OC seems more acceptable since most people have seen cops OCing since they were kids.

    It’s not the message we should be concerned about — it’s the sentiment. And, above all, a place like Starbucks (as opposed to a place like Gander Mountain, Cabelas, etc.) is not where you will find people who will likely default to our position automatically by telling them it’s our right to OC.

    Just my two cents.

  25. Jack says:

    A question is if Starbucks is more interested in reducing the numbefr of OC demonstrations (and the negative press from that) or if they’re more interested in placating the antis.

    If it’s the former, then this polciy will do that. If it’s the latter then no, it won’t. The antis are already screaming “Not enough! Full ban! We want signs!”

    One thing to note is that many stores with an official no-guns policy, don’t bother with signage. That’s because a sign on the door does more to turn off a potential customer than a media-pleasing corp policy. (Many companies try to have their cake and eat it too).

    One definite effect is that even gunnies that can understand Starbuck’s decision won’t go out of their way to shop there.

    For most of us their product is expensive and overratted, and the only thing having us go out of our way to shop there was showing support.

    Now many won’t bother. (Personally, I don’t like coffee so I’ve got no reason to shop there now.) And that’s not even counting the gunnies that are going for a hard boycott.

    • Geodkyt says:

      Agreed. Let the antis continue to act like jerks and keep pulling Starbucks into a boxing ring they do not want to stand in (because boxing interferes with their schtick, which is selling overpriced coffee).

      “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”

      • Jack says:

        As always “Don’t be a dick” is what counts.

        The antis are almost always dicks. But they have media cover.

        Conversely the media goes out if its way to get the dicks on our side.

        A boycott on our side (without OC or the like protesting) helps make things clear to Starbucks, especially as the antis will keep screaming.

        Also am I alone in noting the timing here?

        Is this a coincidence, or did Starbucks use the Navy Yard as a good time to drop this memo?

        Well for the last week or so the Antis have been desperate for good news to crow about.

      • mike w. says:

        THIS. Good lord THIS. If we’d just sent Starbucks letters with attached receipts when they first said “we respect the law” & then let the anti’s go apeshit and protest this would’ve blown over and we’d look good.

  26. Like I says:

    Fair enough if you want to boycott in protest, but perhaps the “loud and proud,” in-your-face method of going heeled “just because we can” approach should be rethought. It’s going past the point of making people comfortable around guns, and possibly hurting our cause. Just look at what the brazen zeal of open carry of long guns in the PRK (California) did—lawmakers outlawed the practice altogether.

    • Patrick H says:

      I agree, the in-your-face thing isn’t good.

      And Cali is a bad example. That was never in your face. And if it was legal, and by exercising it got it banned, then it was never really legal or exercisable in the first place.

      • Jack says:

        Yeah, Cali’s a bad example.

        Any activity that’s banned becuase you do it while peacably protesting wasn’t ever eally legal.

  27. P.M. says:

    Why woudn’t they just adopt a “No OPEN Carry” policy and leave it there without further towel-wringing? Then they’re not even “requesting” half-assedly that people don’t carry in their stores; they’re just enforcing a dress code.

    I would actually be less inclined to decrese my patronage of Starbucks if they had done that.

    • Patrick says:

      Because our side used them to spike an imaginary football – that Starbucks was taking sides on OC – into the end zone that is gun control.

      Starbucks took away that football, and is likewise taking away any future football we try to imagine. Such as the, “Starbucks supports concealed carry in their stores”.

      This was a carefully written and well though out response by the firm. They deflated all of our footballs while at the same time saying, “you can come in and we won’t object. Just don’t be a dick about it.”

      Mom’s Demanding Attention are now spiking their imaginary football. The difference is their ball was made by us.

  28. Andy B. says:

    While leaning toward “don’t be a jerk,” I need to reflect that here in PA, handgun OC was legal yet pretty much a dead letter for most of my life, at least since the mid-’60s. Everyone knew it was a “sure it’s legal, but you better not try it” thing.

    Then a lot of activists got behind it, and decided to push the envelope, and now you can pretty much OC without being hassled.

    I’m just throwing that out for reflection, more than for argument. At what point people are pushing an envelope too hard, may not always be clear.

    • Dan says:

      That’s ultimately the difference between good open carry activism (go about your life, answer questions if people ask) and bad open carry activism (HEY LOOK AT ME IVE GOT A RIFLE, IM BUYING COFFEE EVERYONE! AM I UNDER ARRESTED, SIR? AM I BEING DETAINED, SIR?)

      The former results in the situation you’ve described, the latter results in California banning open carry and international businesses getting tired of the effort required to support gun rights.

      • Patrick H says:

        I agree with your first paragraph. Disagree with your second. A better worded second paragraph would be:

        The former results in the situation you’ve described as well as California banning open carry, the latter results in international businesses getting tired of the effort required to support gun rights.

        We have to remember the difference between public and private here.

      • Heather from AK says:

        I don’t think California needs any help to ban anything related to guns, ever.

  29. Cormac says:

    People who dress (and arm themselves) just to get attention are the ones to blame for this.

    I’ve been waiting a while for this shoe to drop. And we can place the blame firmly on those who carry a rifle for no apparent reason other than to cause conflict.

    All they wanted was to be left alone to make and sell coffee to anybody who wants it.
    Instead they were occupied by people looking for a fight.

  30. Drifter says:

    It seems like an awful lot of folks here are twisting themselves into pretzel logic to rationalize continued patronage at Starbucks. Many are saying out of one side of their mouth that the “rude” OC guys got us to this point (I agree), then they turn around and say, “Well, it’s not a ban, so I’m carrying.” How is not rude to go against the wishes of a proprietor? Starbucks has asked nicely (albeit in a milquetoast fashion). Let’s give them what they want.

  31. Sebastian says:

    I am going to have more to say on this later today. I am in meetings all day so that’s why I haven’t followed up.

    • Patrick says:

      I don’t drink their coffee. Or any coffee, really. I don’t even like their in-store tea.

      At the same time, I try to understand when I drinketh our own Kool-Aide. My reflexes said, “Eff Starbucks”, but looking deeper I realize that not recognizing the dumb things we did means we will just do it again.

      Someone said we should stop beating the dead horse. I think we should take the time to make sure we don’t do things to hurt the cause, again.

      • You mean things that hurt the cause like dividing a community so it can be conquered or assigning collective blame for an individual’s decision?

        We should not eat our own over a business decision.

        • Andy B. says:

          “You mean things that hurt the cause like dividing a community…”

          I’ll admit I’m getting a little suspicious of “Don’t divide ‘the community'” arguments. Just how far are we supposed to go in supporting, or even not offending, people we disagree with, just because they say they like guns as much as we do? Is there no one in the self-described “gun rights community” who is a liability, that would be better left shunned, or that we should not say “You don’t speak for me?”

          Come Election Day I’ll welcome anyone who votes with us. But I will make no bones that I believe that the rest of the time, we have a lot of fellow travelers who, their rhetoric aside, cynically use the RKBA to advance other agendas that they care about far more than they care about gun rights. Should we never call them on it, as long as they are flapping their gums in a way that sounds favorable to gun rights?

          Exactly what is the extent of “our community?”

          • Andy B,
            You’ve taken my words to a polar extreme. I’m not defending anyone’s brazen stunts, but I live in an area where open carry is very acceptable and common. I don’t see how the spleen venting against open carry does anything other than fuel the antis in Arizona and other free states. If you consider that to be my selfish and cynical motive, I’ll own it.

            I can’t answer the question about the extent of “our community,” because I fail to grasp the concept of collective responsibility, or the self-flagellation fest that has accompanied a CEO’s blog post.

            I know you are on my side of the real issue at stake. I just wish the knee-jerk reactions were left to the other side.

            • Patrick H says:

              I think the line is don’t fight against our rights and don’t be a dick when you do fight for our rights.

              Cross that line and you are out of our community. The California OC activists didn’t cross that line. The Starbuck OC activists did.

              Kessler and Kokesh are examples of those that crossed the line too.

              • I think the line is don’t fight against our rights and don’t be a dick when you do fight for our rights.

                I agree. I’m concerned that I’ll have to fight against the many people piling on about the evils of open carry.

                Don’t be a jerk about carry and don’t provide great position statements for the antis. I really don’t want my state to regress to the mean.

            • Andy B. says:

              “You’ve taken my words to a polar extreme.”

              I apologize for that. It just happened your mention of “divide and conquer” touched on something that has been on my mind for a few days, and I sort of took advantage of your use of the phrase in a somewhat different context, to express some of the thoughts that have been troubling me.

              A frequent theme you will hear from me is, people who take advantage of us in the RKBA movement, to advance other agendas; that is, duplicity by people who pretend to be “in our community.”

              • Your apology and explanation is greatly appreciated.

                Just yesterday, I learned of an ill-timed event in my area. The event appears to be the same type of co-opting you are concerned about. We’ll see what shakes out about it the next few days.

  32. Rob says:

    …meh I don’t drink coffee. The statement I read is just them asking to be taken out of the limelight and let them be.

    Reasonable request… I think both sides are at fault on this one. Time to stop beating the proverbial dead horse.

  33. beatbox says:

    For the “right not exercised…” crowd. Go to your nearest busy street corner and stand their exercising free speech by reading the dictionary as loud as you can. Yes, you have the right to it, but it doesn’t mean you don’t look bat-shit crazy doing it.

    • Andy B. says:

      When I commented negatively on that asshat Police Chief Kessler in Schuykill County, in another venue, somebody chided me for advocating limiting his “freedom of speech.” No, I thought, I’m advocating for Police Chiefs not being bat-shit crazy.

      Seriously, it amazes me how many people advocate for “freedom of speech” to mean, nobody is allowed to take what you say seriously, and react to it appropriately for what is said and how it’s said.

  34. janklow says:

    the problem with saying this is just about open carry is this quote:

    “For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.”

    it applies to more than just open carry; as written, they request you don’t bring guns in in states where open carry is NOT permitted.

    i don’t like the way many open carry advocates go about their business, but frankly, i take great offense at how Starbucks is currently going about theirs.

  35. Robb_H says:

    What bothers me the most is that the CEO acknowledges that BOTH sides were getting confrontational, but ONLY one side was told to respect Starbucks wishes and don’t exercise their “Right to Carry”. Nothing was asked of the anti-gun people, such as “Please respect the rights of others by NOT exercising your right to free speech to complain and bitch about it”. Starbucks has chosen sides. My money will go elsewhere.

  36. tincankilla says:

    I’m with this fella: open carry activism is sorta dumb and ruins it for the rest of us. http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Starbucks says “leave us out of this” - [...] guess they don’t want gun owner business. Because that is what will happen. They never really got my business…
top