But the question is now out there.... glad Starbucks feels it’s important enough to address. Hopefully each of us can take a moment and be very honest with ourselves and reflect on the situation – just my 2 cents.

 

Of course the question is out there but it still doesn't mean we can answer it one way or another. However, the only other evidence that has been shared would lend itself to say that the store does refuse bathroom access to all non paying customers.

 

The police Sgt. being refused bathroom access without purchasing something tends to show this is a blanket policy that the store follows.

 

Unless it's found in print somewhere otherwise, you're assuming the officer who was allegedly denied service was at the same location. If he wasn't, that argument is irrelevant.

Of course the question is out there but it still doesn't mean we can answer it one way or another. However, the only other evidence that has been shared would lend itself to say that the store does refuse bathroom access to all non paying customers.

 

I think Starbucks (and others) would say a more important outcome is to step back and learn to recognize and address bias.

Do we know how long the two guys were there before the police showed up? They said they told the employees they were meeting a 3rd person for a business meeting. Odd that the manager would call the police if they told them they were meeting someone.

 

Regarding using the bathroom: A video is online of a black man who was told he couldn't use the bathroom unless he bought something. He saw a white guy then go into the bathroom without having bought something nor being told he had to buy something. He was given the key while the black man wasn't. Black guy even interviewed the white guy after he came out of the bathroom.

 

As always this comes down to individual employees either a)not consistently enforcing policy or b)making up policy based on the individual.

I think Starbucks (and others) would say a more important outcome is to step back and learn to recognize and address bias.

 

Again, people are assuming a bias that may not be there in this case.

What does that have to do with Starbucks calling to police on two men that were by their policy, trespassing?

Furthermore how would have had the police handle this situation?

 

I think it could directly speak to how the police in that particular area deal with people of color given those statistics. The 2nd article is actually where I found the link to the video and the first article.

I think it could directly speak to how the police in that particular area deal with people of color given those statistics. The 2nd article is actually where I found the link to the video and the first article.

 

But you do agree that the police in the Starbucks handled the situation correctly?

Happens all the time at places like that and Panera for short business meetings. I've done it a few times myself at Panera and I know a few others that have as well. Often times I will get a little something, but I haven't a few times. I'd say most buy something, but it's not uncommon and my point is probably something no one would ever notice.

 

I met my tax guy at a Panera this year. I felt uncomfortable sitting there without food/drink. He was meeting another person right after me. No big deal to him. Place was not busy at the time. I'll recommend the normal bar next year LOL

Likewise I was in a restaurant earlier this week in Nashville and we were done eating and the place was packed. We all had our laptops out. I suggested we all go to the office where our meeting was going to be to give up the table.

Again, people are assuming a bias that may not be there in this case.

 

Maybe, but I agree with Starbucks to take action just in case.

 

In the words of Winston Churchill: “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

Maybe, but I agree with Starbucks to take action just in case.

 

In the words of Winston Churchill: “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

 

I don't disagree with them, it's their business to run it how they see fit. I would also not disagree if they did nothing until they had more information.

I haven't read the article but this one makes my spider sense tingle.

 

My gut says if two sophisticated white women walked in to use the restroom nothing would have been said to them.

 

Police Chief/Commissioner, I forget which, said he was familiar with a Sgt with his PD also being denied entry to the restrooms. He said at least their consistent with their policy.....

But you do agree that the police in the Starbucks handled the situation correctly?

 

Once it got to the point that they were asked to leave by the police and they declined I do. My question is were they white would their claim of a meeting have been listened to?

These guys weren't handcuffed for not ordering anything either. They were handcuffed because they were asked to leave private property by management and then again by law enforcement, and refused to do so.

 

Now if you want to take issue with management getting the police involved, I think that's fair. Probably would've been best and easier to just let it go. I'm not sure how anyone can take issue with what the police did upon arrival. They tried to get them to leave without incident. The guys refused. At that point, their hands are tied.

 

And what occurs at other Starbucks is irrelevant. What goes on at a Starbucks in Crestview Hills, KY and what is allowed in a Starbucks in downtown Philadelphia aren't necessarily going to be the same thing.

 

That's why the questions I posed earlier are important.

 

Exactly. I highly doubt Crestview Hills Starbucks has had the same problems in the past that a location in downtown Philadelphia has. They have their policies in place for a reason.

After reading the article. Its absolutley the 2 guys fault.

 

Who shows up for business meetings in sweat pants?

 

Yet, you were quick to take their side at the beginning.....

Once it got to the point that they were asked to leave by the police and they declined I do. My question is were they white would their claim of a meeting have been listened to?

 

By the Starbucks employees or the police? Because it wouldn't matter either way to the police.