Because she sat in the same starbucks the day before for an hour without buying anything and didn't get asked to leave. Hmmm, she sounds like a regular there.

 

Did she ask to use the restroom too?

Evidently someone thought that at least one employee of the establishment was in the wrong. I can't imagine a national chain closing thousands of stores for an entire day for "sensitivity training" without cause.

Is your issue actually with Starbucks or the person who refused to let them use the bathroom and asked them to leave and called the cops?

 

The people who made a scene when there shouldn’t have been one. Starbucks has handled this how they should, IMO.

So how did she determine they were being profiled?

 

Did you watch the video?

And the point remains people sit in Starbucks all the time without even being approached, much less having the cops called on them.

 

How do you know that people there haven't been asked to leave?

Fellas, this isn't this hard. You can't keep hanging onto the "policy" argument. It's all about the enforcement of any policy.

 

How do you know how it has been enforced?

I'm not blaming the cops. My issue is with Starbucks, for sure.

 

However, I do think it's absurd to arrest someone in this particular situation.

 

From what i read, police talked to them for 10 minutes and contacted a supervisor before arresting them.

How do you know how it has been enforced?

 

How do you know that people there haven't been asked to leave?

 

I think these are some of the questions that Starbucks are asking of themselves. Hence the training.

 

I just read that even the white employee who called 911 now recognizes that perhaps the call should not have been made.

I feel like something is missing from the story. But if anyone is to blame it's starbucks correct ? Cops tell you to leave, you leave. I really don't see how cops can be blamed.

I just read that even the white employee who called 911 now recognizes that perhaps the call should not have been made.

 

What do you think that means?

 

Does that mean anyone can use Starbucks space/resources without making a purchase?

I feel like something is missing from the story. But if anyone is to blame it's starbucks correct ? Cops tell you to leave, you leave. I really don't see how cops can be blamed.

 

Agreed on the police doing what they had to do.

What do you think that means?

 

Does that mean anyone can use Starbucks space/resources without making a purchase?

 

Maybe she wants to address her implicit bias, promote conscious inclusion, prevent discrimination and ensure everyone inside a Starbucks store feels safe and welcome.

 

And most people I know already do this on occassion.... lol

Maybe she wants to address her implicit bias, promote conscious inclusion, prevent discrimination and ensure everyone inside a Starbucks store feels safe and welcome.

 

And most people I know already do this on occassion.... lol

 

Or maybe she has no idea what to do because she gets mixed messages from the Starbucks powers that be and she knows the application of the no purchase, no service policy is inconsistent so she is saying I have no clue what I am supposed to do.

Or maybe she has no idea what to do because she gets mixed messages from the Starbucks powers that be and she knows the application of the no purchase, no service policy is inconsistent so she is saying I have no clue what I am supposed to do.

 

You could be correct. However, it still comes down to how it's enforced - consistently or selectively?

You could be correct. However, it still comes down to how it's enforced - consistently or selectively?

 

Right, the training should consist of a clearly defined policy regarding non-paying customers that must be followed.