'progressive' coffee chain 'racist'

cheesyboy · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:20

Caracus2k said:
What's the difference then?

Its a simple question.

Why does the white guy not get to wait for his friend?

Does a private business have the right to seek to eject non paying members of the public? What's the 'moral' dimension in all this?

I said 'no', as in "no, I could find no 'moral' reason for his removal as well"

cheesyboy · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:23

dowie said:
no it isn't, it is a question

It does apply to the incident at hand, again you're selectively ignoring parts of the posts I've made - you don't know how many tables were free and allowing people, as a general policy, to just sit there after they've been offered service and made it clear they have no intention of buying anything could easily lead to a situation were you get more people using the place to hang out if nothing is done... you don't want to answer as you know what the solution is

We know they weren't blocking tables because we can see they weren't blocking tables and because there was no suggestion from anyone that they were blocking tables.

The solution, as I said right at the start, is to deal with The Bad Thing when it happens. But two guys sat in a not-full coffee shop is not that Bad Thing.

Caracus2k · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:24

cheesyboy said:
I said 'no', as in "no, I could find no 'moral' reason for his removal as well"

How about a business reason to remove a non paying guest?

If the store loses revenue due to non paying members of the public taking up space and has to lay of staff is their a moral aspect here?

Or if the manager is under pressure to maintain a certain level of sales which will be adversely affected by non paying members of the public and this affects them?

Is there a moral dimension then in your view?

Craterloads · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:25

Caracus2k said:
Did you miss the reported incidents of this happening to a pregnant White woman and a white cop?

Of course the police weren't called on them because they accepted the decision of staff at the time (even of they didn't think it was right) and left. According to the account of the pregnant woman her husband even offered to pay for something and was still denied access to the bathroom!

The two men weren't arrested due to them challenging the rules around bathroom usage as you seem to be suggesting (rules you demonstrated in your OP as being enforced or not willy nilly) but rather waiting at a table for a friend, who did show up not long after. The incidents aren't comparable as the white woman and white cop had no other business at starbucks and left the premises. The two black kids did have other business as they explained were waiting on a friend. The decision of the staff at the time regarding bathroom usage is irrelevant to the police being called.

They could have bought something rather then saying they were fine as they had bought their own beverages to a coffee shop!....

They carried a bottle of water around with them... your framing makes it sound like they whipped out teabags and thermos. They also made clear they were waiting on a friend, if i said that to a waiter or who ever it would be assumed i would order shortly after my acquaintance arrives.

Nelson and Robinson originally were supposed to meet Andrew Yaffe, a white local businessman, at a Starbucks across town. But the plan changed, and they agreed to meet at the Rittenhouse Square location, where they had met several times before on a potential real estate opportunity.

The black men arrived a few minutes early. Three police officers showed up not long after.

Nelson said they were not questioned but were told to leave immediately.

Yaffe showed up as the men were being handcuffed. He can be seen in the video demanding an explanation for the officers’ actions. Nelson and Robinson did not resist arrest, confused and unsure of what to think or what might happen next.

This is not ok, and i can see why it's seen as discrimination.

Caracus2k · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:26

cheesyboy said:
We know they weren't blocking tables because we can see they weren't blocking tables and because there was no suggestion from anyone that they were blocking tables.

Should business have to accept passive use of their facilities by non paying members of the public (which won't be cost neutral as things like the toilets and bins will need more cleaning and will be at greater risk of vandalism) then without asking said people to vacate?

Dan103 · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:27

If they had not intention to purchase anything then shop staff were well within their right to ask them to leave as its a coffee shop not an office space and potential customers may have needed space to sit and consume their purchases.
If they did refuse to leave then white, black or orange the shop would have to call police to remove them. Why they cuffed them and took them to a police station is beyond me, they could have just escorted them outside to see the person they were meeting and go elsewhere to continue the meeting. my 2p

Craterloads · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:28

cheesyboy · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:28

Caracus2k said:
Should business have to accept passive use of their facilities by non paying members of the public (which won't be cost neutral as things like the toilets and bins will need more cleaning and will be at greater risk of vandalism) then without asking said people to vacate?

they shouldn't have to, no. But they should be aware that their actions don't happen in a vacuum, and by positioning themselves as significantly more unreasonable than a pair of guys sat without a coffee is likely to not reflect well.

dowie · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:29

cheesyboy said:
We know they weren't blocking tables because we can see they weren't blocking tables and because there was no suggestion from anyone that they were blocking tables.

they're occupying a table and we don't know how many other tables are occupied - that is fact and you keep ignoring it

The solution, as I said right at the start, is to deal with The Bad Thing when it happens. But two guys sat in a not-full coffee shop is not that Bad Thing.

so how do you deal with it - you keep quoting me but never actually answer the question

Caracus2k · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:29

Craterloads said:
This is not ok, and i can see why it's seen as discrimination.

Yes it's discrimination.... Against non paying customers who have declined to buy anything in a coffee shop (having pointed out that they had their own beverages with them) and who decided to ignore the calm requests to become a customer of the venue and then ignored calm requests to vacate the premises.

Craterloads · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:32

Out of interest whats your take on the LA Fitness incident @Caracus2k ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-police-black-man-member-gym-EIGHT-YEARS.html

Caracus2k · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:33

cheesyboy said:
they shouldn't have to, no. But they should be aware that their actions don't happen in a vacuum, and by positioning themselves as significantly more unreasonable than a pair of guys sat without a coffee is likely to not reflect well.

The shouldn't have to accept it but can't (effectively) do anything about it?

What nonsense.

Caracus2k · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:34

Craterloads said:
Out of interest whats your take on the LA Fitness incident @Caracus2k ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-police-black-man-member-gym-EIGHT-YEARS.html

From what I saw it was poor treatment of a paying customer? So not relevant

Edit: having read the article it appears that poor attitude of the supposed aggrived party was very significant factor

LA Fitness said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'The front desk staff employee was confused and thought the member was a guest. He explained that he was a member, had checked in earlier, and did not want to retrieve his membership card a second time. The front desk employee who made the request was not working when this member checked in the first time, so she was unaware.

I'd don't know about the US but in the UK when I have been in a gym I have been asked by staff for my pass having already shown it at the desk. I didn't have any issues as I just complied with the request....

Craterloads · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:36

Caracus2k said:
Yes it's discrimination.... Against non paying customers who have declined to buy anything in a coffee shop (having pointed out that they had their own beverages with them) and who decided to ignore the calm requests to become a customer of the venue and then ignored calm requests to vacate the premises.

And they ignored a calm response indicating they are awaiting the arrival of a acquaintance at which time perhaps they may have become customers of the venue but didn't get the opportunity to due to discrimination.

StriderX · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:37

How do you train "unconscious" racial thought? The **** is that ****?

Craterloads · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:37

Caracus2k said:
From what I saw it was poor treatment of a paying customer? So not relevant

I was asking your take on it, do you see discrimination there or not?

dowie · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:37

Craterloads said:
And they ignored a calm response indicating they are awaiting the arrival of a acquaintance at which time perhaps they may have become customers of the venue but didn't get the opportunity to due to discrimination.

that's a bit dubious... I'd wager that had they said they're not ready to order until their friend arrives then you'd not have had this incident in the first place, it was the fact they made it clear that they weren't going to order anything that caused them to be asked to leave

explicit4u · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:37

Caracus2k said:
Should business have to accept passive use of their facilities by non paying members of the public (which won't be cost neutral as things like the toilets and bins will need more cleaning and will be at greater risk of vandalism) then without asking said people to vacate?

Its a starbucks!

It happens all the friggin time. No they don't have to accept it if they don't want to but I'd say there's a case to be made for it being a popular meeting/meetup spot and that people do tend to buy something once the whole group has arrived. It's kinda similar to being in a restaurant and waiting for the entire party to arrive before ordering.

And as for the ridiculous 'oh they might be blocking others from getting a seat' comment, there's at least 3 tables free in the video.

XeNoN89 · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:40

blah blah blah racism
blah blah blah gender
blah blah blah offended

Welcome to 2018.

dowie · 20 Apr 2018 at 15:42

explicit4u said:
And as for the ridiculous 'oh they might be blocking others from getting a seat' comment, there's at least 3 tables free in the video.

you seem to have missed the point and ignored half the argument there - you don't know that people on the two neighbouring tables didn't just get up when the police arrived to deal with the two people who have refused to leave.

regardless it misses the point as they are still occupying one table and if they had a general policy of allowing people to just occupy tables whenever they wanted they'd soon fill up