On the Starbucks controversy and loitering laws

[Kramanica]

Get over it.

Ok? Are you missing his point or just ignoring it?

I'm waiting on you to make your point.

[Des-Bal]

Again. You: There is no racism. Me: It suggests it.

We aren't going to convince each other with the data available.

Bullshit.

You are saying there's racism. I'm saying there's no evidence there is, and in the absence of evidence assume nothing.

I say that in the absence of evidence there's no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, you say that in the absence of evidence there is.

We are not equals in this.

This is not a well-reasoned debate over who should bear the burden of proof.

This is people explaining logic while you cover your ears.

[Kramanica]

Again. You: There is no racism. Me: It suggests it.

We aren't going to convince each other with the data available.

Bullshit.

You are saying there's racism. I'm saying there's no evidence there is, and in the absence of evidence assume nothing.

I say that in the absence of evidence there's no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, you say that in the absence of evidence there is.

We are not equals in this.

This is not a well-reasoned debate over who should bear the burden of proof.

This is people explaining logic while you cover your ears.

Don't bother. I've been trying to explain the burden of proof to him for three pages now. Its useless. He is incapable of learning.

[The Black Forrest]

Again. You: There is no racism. Me: It suggests it.

We aren't going to convince each other with the data available.

Bullshit.

You are saying there's racism. I'm saying there's no evidence there is, and in the absence of evidence assume nothing.

I say that in the absence of evidence there's no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, you say that in the absence of evidence there is.

We are not equals in this.

This is not a well-reasoned debate over who should bear the burden of proof.

This is people explaining logic while you cover your ears.

No I still think the actions suggest it.

If there is a consistent use of the loitering policy, then I withdraw the claim.

[Kramanica]

Bullshit.

You are saying there's racism. I'm saying there's no evidence there is, and in the absence of evidence assume nothing.

I say that in the absence of evidence there's no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, you say that in the absence of evidence there is.

We are not equals in this.

This is not a well-reasoned debate over who should bear the burden of proof.

This is people explaining logic while you cover your ears.

No I still think the actions suggest it.

If there is a consistent use of the loitering policy, then I withdraw the claim.

And the evidence is...

[The Black Forrest]

No I still think the actions suggest it.

If there is a consistent use of the loitering policy, then I withdraw the claim.

And the evidence is...

AS if you would accept it.

The manager made a big mistake calling the police. Even if discrimination wasn't involved; it opened door for liability. Simply having a policy which prohibits people from loitering or using the bathroom is meaningless if it's not consistently applied. If they were targeting people and using the rule as an excuse, I think they are still in trouble.

[West Leas Oros]

Tbh, I don’t see what’s wrong with loitering anyway. Who cares if a few triggered people claim bigotry, when, the real problem is the criminalization of loitering. Loitering is completely harmless, and should be legal.

[Twilight Imperium]

words

My claim is that we'll probably never know for sure and the past 14 pages insisting that we do are sort of dumb, fwiw.

[West Leas Oros]

Tbh, I don’t see what’s wrong with loitering anyway. Who cares if a few triggered people claim bigotry, when, the real problem is the criminalization of loitering. Loitering is completely harmless, and should be legal.

We’re all ignoring the real problem here. Did no one read my previous post?

[Kramanica]

And the evidence is...

AS if you would accept it.

The manager made a big mistake calling the police. Even if discrimination wasn't involved; it opened door for liability. Simply having a policy which prohibits people from loitering or using the bathroom is meaningless if it's not consistently applied. If they were targeting people and using the rule as an excuse, I think they are still in trouble.

Finally.

And loitering is generally left up to the discretion of the managers. But it is still illegal.

[Azurius]

Gee jet another, while despicable, incident that was just way overblown... Yet another social media shitstorm.

What so say? It´s practically impossible to deny that racism was involved. People frequently visit cafes etc. without ordering anything, it rarely happens that you are forced to leave unless you order something, it´s also common policy for practically any cafe, restaurant, fast food chain etc. to offer free WC usage. Part of simple service that customers like and that also sells good, common sense policy. And especialy Starbucks itself in fact directly advertizes that policy themselves.

From all infos on the background: 2 black guys simply went into Starbucks, sat there for 10 minutes talking, minding their own business and ordering nothing as they were waiting for a friend, one of them then wants to use the tiolette. And here the drama starts... Once more how often do people go into cafes, bars etc. alone or with other people ordering nothing? Yes using the WC eventually too, god forbid.... Which brings us to the next point: It´s just a fucking WC flush, how much does that one flush cost, plus some handwashing? Less then 0,5 cents? Yeah exactly... Which is why it is common policy to offer that as service, sells good, self advertizement and the good service and reviews gained from that override any ridicilous flush or even handsoap costs.

What is also important to notice is the fact that other customers instantly jumped to their defence. They sat their peacefully minding their own business, and to the end of the video too they were not angry, provocative, yelling or anything. They might have argued yes(oh my god, felony... free speech obviously is not important anymore...). Those other customers multiple times asked why they were arrested and what exactly they have done wrong to deserve that arrest. From the information you can also deduce that a white female pair was in fact sitting there too, for longer then our black gentlemen, without ordering anything either. They weren´t forced to buy anything either. And 1 of these 2 women in fact also spoke out in their defense as you can hear in the video.

For fairness also important to note: While polite, the 2 black guys were dressed pretty typical gangster hip-hop style. And especially the larger one features a Mr. T style beard and haircut xD Plus his sheer size he is of course naturaly intimidating. But hell... really? They happen to be large and intimidating? Their clothes are of a certain style? Shouldn´t it be their behaviour that counts? Exactly. But argue as you want to this was not the case here, and hence it rightfully deserves an outcry. There was discrimination involved here, be it because of skin color, clothing and dress style or both.


Clearly a bit overblown... but hey nice to see the wind blow from a left direction every now and then. Is some shitstorm like that neccessary? Nope, considering cases like that happens all the day in practically every country, this one just happen to have gained medial fame. The Guardian article itself... Yeah overblown. While highlighting an important issue it focuses far too much on exactly that issue while reporting very little to nearly nothing about the actual incident itself. Felt much more like a political oppinion or punch line then an article. No problem with reporting an social issue, however when you neglect proper journalism as a result it goes into the field of incompetence. Media is for reporting, as objective as possible, not political punches. A shame, the Guardian can do better and should once more in future.


Ah yeah before I forget: Also wanted to mention that this scenario is practically impossible here in Germany. You have a right of what we call "notdurft", the need to empty yourself in case of pressure, which is a basic constitutional right. Obviously private property laws grasp here(including rented flats and things like that too), but in public you are allowed to visit any WC, or that matter use the next tree or bush. You are also allowed to go into privately owned restaurants(obviously without needing to order anything) etc. for that matter. So this mere WC incident wouldn´t even have been an issue here.

[Des-Bal]

AS if you would accept it.

The manager made a big mistake calling the police. Even if discrimination wasn't involved; it opened door for liability. Simply having a policy which prohibits people from loitering or using the bathroom is meaningless if it's not consistently applied. If they were targeting people and using the rule as an excuse, I think they are still in trouble.

So we're back to this absurd fucking idea that there is no discretion without improper discrimination. The entire reason we have managers is that they are capable of making decisions and exercising judgement in how policy ought to be implemented. When a manager can do nothing but enforce specific rules without personal discretion then they're probably not properly classified as a manager, it's the kind of thing you look for in labor suit. A policy doesn't become meaningless when it's not uniformly applied, a manager may decide that based on the weather the lunch rush is going to be particularly big and that even though 9/10 times they don't care if someone's just sitting around that it might, under these circumstances, actually cause a problem for the business. Likewise, maybe there are a couple regulars ordering coffee and chatting all day- maybe those paying customers would be a little put out if the bathroom was constantly in use by non-customers. Maybe you haven't seen a customer in days and somebody steps in to get out of the rain while he checks up on an appointment, telling him to buy something or fuck off is not necessarily good for the business.

What you do here is establish a policy that says customers aren't entitled to loiter and then leave the enforcement of that up to the manager's discretion. If it's found that a manager was using improper criteria such as race then the public outrage is warranted. What we abso-fucking-lutely should not do is cry to the heavens that we're confused and frightened by the way laws and businesses work and start raving about racist witches.

[The Black Forrest]

AS if you would accept it.

The manager made a big mistake calling the police. Even if discrimination wasn't involved; it opened door for liability. Simply having a policy which prohibits people from loitering or using the bathroom is meaningless if it's not consistently applied. If they were targeting people and using the rule as an excuse, I think they are still in trouble.

So we're back to this absurd fucking idea that there is no discretion without improper discrimination. The entire reason we have managers is that they are capable of making decisions and exercising judgement in how policy ought to be implemented. When a manager can do nothing but enforce specific rules without personal discretion then they're probably not properly classified as a manager, it's the kind of thing you look for in labor suit. A policy doesn't become meaningless when it's not uniformly applied, a manager may decide that based on the weather the lunch rush is going to be particularly big and that even though 9/10 times they don't care if someone's just sitting around that it might, under these circumstances, actually cause a problem for the business. Likewise, maybe there are a couple regulars ordering coffee and chatting all day- maybe those paying customers would be a little put out if the bathroom was constantly in use by non-customers. Maybe you haven't seen a customer in days and somebody steps in to get out of the rain while he checks up on an appointment, telling him to buy something or fuck off is not necessarily good for the business.

What you do here is establish a policy that says customers aren't entitled to loiter and then leave the enforcement of that up to the manager's discretion. If it's found that a manager was using improper criteria such as race then the public outrage is warranted. What we abso-fucking-lutely should not do is cry to the heavens that we're confused and frightened by the way laws and businesses work and start raving about racist witches.

But the fact remains. Was the practice consistently applied? If yes, there is no discrimination. The fact the policy exists is meaningless without consistency.

The problem is we probably won't get that information.

[Des-Bal]

But the fact remains. Was the practice consistently applied? If yes, there is no discrimination. The fact the policy exists is meaningless without consistency.

The problem is we probably won't get that information.

I literally just explained to you why "consistency" doesn't mean shit. You have no evidence and you're responding to logical analysis by repeating yourself. This isn't really a discussion at this point.

[The Black Forrest]

But the fact remains. Was the practice consistently applied? If yes, there is no discrimination. The fact the policy exists is meaningless without consistency.

The problem is we probably won't get that information.

I literally just explained to you why "consistency" doesn't mean shit. You have no evidence and you're responding to logical analysis by repeating yourself. This isn't really a discussion at this point.

Actually you just gave your opinion which doesn't invalidate the question of consistent use of the policy. Do you have a court case you want to offer as evidence?

[Ors Might]

Not seeing any evidence of racism. This isn’t the only time a Starbucks shop has thrown someone out for loitering and inconsistency between individual chains on policy is hardly indicative of discrimination in this particular one. As a poster pointed out, if I’m not mistaken, this specific Starbucks had a black woman loitering for two hours and not much fuss was raised. So while there might possibly be discrimination based on race at play, there’s nothing concrete proving that it is. You can argue that this was a bad move on part of the manager but it’s a cunt move to call her a racist, a term that has very damning connotations, based on little more than your subjective feelings.

[Des-Bal]

Actually you just gave your opinion which doesn't invalidate the question of consistent use of the policy. Do you have a court case you want to offer as evidence?

No, I explained how managers work. The concept of management is racist or your entire process is fucked.

[Oberreich]

Gee jet another, while despicable, incident that was just way overblown... Yet another social media shitstorm.

What so say? It´s practically impossible to deny that racism was involved. People frequently visit cafes etc. without ordering anything, it rarely happens that you are forced to leave unless you order something, it´s also common policy for practically any cafe, restaurant, fast food chain etc. to offer free WC usage. Part of simple service that customers like and that also sells good, common sense policy. And especialy Starbucks itself in fact directly advertizes that policy themselves.

From all infos on the background: 2 black guys simply went into Starbucks, sat there for 10 minutes talking, minding their own business and ordering nothing as they were waiting for a friend, one of them then wants to use the tiolette. And here the drama starts... Once more how often do people go into cafes, bars etc. alone or with other people ordering nothing? Yes using the WC eventually too, god forbid.... Which brings us to the next point: It´s just a fucking WC flush, how much does that one flush cost, plus some handwashing? Less then 0,5 cents? Yeah exactly... Which is why it is common policy to offer that as service, sells good, self advertizement and the good service and reviews gained from that override any ridicilous flush or even handsoap costs.

What is also important to notice is the fact that other customers instantly jumped to their defence. They sat their peacefully minding their own business, and to the end of the video too they were not angry, provocative, yelling or anything. They might have argued yes(oh my god, felony... free speech obviously is not important anymore...). Those other customers multiple times asked why they were arrested and what exactly they have done wrong to deserve that arrest. From the information you can also deduce that a white female pair was in fact sitting there too, for longer then our black gentlemen, without ordering anything either. They weren´t forced to buy anything either. And 1 of these 2 women in fact also spoke out in their defense as you can hear in the video.

For fairness also important to note: While polite, the 2 black guys were dressed pretty typical gangster hip-hop style. And especially the larger one features a Mr. T style beard and haircut xD Plus his sheer size he is of course naturaly intimidating. But hell... really? They happen to be large and intimidating? Their clothes are of a certain style? Shouldn´t it be their behaviour that counts? Exactly. But argue as you want to this was not the case here, and hence it rightfully deserves an outcry. There was discrimination involved here, be it because of skin color, clothing and dress style or both.


Clearly a bit overblown... but hey nice to see the wind blow from a left direction every now and then. Is some shitstorm like that neccessary? Nope, considering cases like that happens all the day in practically every country, this one just happen to have gained medial fame. The Guardian article itself... Yeah overblown. While highlighting an important issue it focuses far too much on exactly that issue while reporting very little to nearly nothing about the actual incident itself. Felt much more like a political oppinion or punch line then an article. No problem with reporting an social issue, however when you neglect proper journalism as a result it goes into the field of incompetence. Media is for reporting, as objective as possible, not political punches. A shame, the Guardian can do better and should once more in future.


Ah yeah before I forget: Also wanted to mention that this scenario is practically impossible here in Germany. You have a right of what we call "notdurft", the need to empty yourself in case of pressure, which is a basic constitutional right. Obviously private property laws grasp here(including rented flats and things like that too), but in public you are allowed to visit any WC, or that matter use the next tree or bush. You are also allowed to go into privately owned restaurants(obviously without needing to order anything) etc. for that matter. So this mere WC incident wouldn´t even have been an issue here.

Interestingly, I had thought you hadn't been outside of the US, because I have found Europe more strict when it comes to public toilets. McDonalds, for example, often have a code for the bathroom. In fact pay toilets are the norm in Germany. I have also been told to move, when I have just been sitting without buying something in Germany more often than 20 some years in the states.

I think the main issue with bathroom use is not the water, which is very cheap in the US. In a high traffic location, a Restaurant could easily become very dirty very fast and possibly attract homeless and junkies that use it to bath or shoot up.

Still, I don't think that the bathroom was the main issue, and I would give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and only inact a stricter policy after a problem occured.

[West Leas Oros]

The real problem here is the criminalization of loitering. Clearly, this would be a nonissue if loitering were legal.

[Lough Neagh]

This is the very first time I have heard of a Starbucks requiring people to make purchases just to use the restroom. I have been to hundreds of Starbucks and none of them had that requirement until I went to the one in Philadelphia which is the subject of this controversy. The manager was rude. And as I sat at a table waiting for my phone to charge I observed how people were treated and it left a lot of to be desired.

That lady was like that towards everyone. She looked down on everybody, not just blacks. She had no business managing a customer service oriented establishment. She belongs in the backroom where no one has to deal with her. And yes I did observe she had a great deal of bias towards blacks. For example when I was there, a black gentleman wanted to use the restroom and purchased a coffee to do so but the manager insisted it was not enough to use the restroom. I had purchased more than just a coffee but I was never told that was a requirement to use the restroom. I think that woman does not just look down on people who are poor but she doesn't like blacks. That was pretty easy to pick up on.

This Starbucks was outside the mainstream when it comes to my Starbucks experiences and as I said I have been to hundreds of Starbucks in different cities and this is the first I run into such a problem at one of their establishments. People should not judge Starbucks by one bad apple out of the millions of good apples.

[Lough Neagh]

The real problem here is the criminalization of loitering. Clearly, this would be a nonissue if loitering were legal.

Yes. It is racist and elitist.

[West Leas Oros]

The real problem here is the criminalization of loitering. Clearly, this would be a nonissue if loitering were legal.

Yes. It is racist and elitist.

No one cares about supposed racism, loitering should just be legal, period.

[Kramanica]

Yes. It is racist and elitist.

No one cares about supposed racism, loitering should just be legal, period.

y tho

[Kramanica]

The real problem here is the criminalization of loitering. Clearly, this would be a nonissue if loitering were legal.

Yes. It is racist and elitist.

lol

[West Leas Oros]

No one cares about supposed racism, loitering should just be legal, period.

y tho

Why should loitering be illegal? It doesn’t hurt anyone, and on its own is completely harmless.