TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:From what I saw somewhere the 2 men were waiting for a 3rd person to show and perhaps at that point they would have ordered. I go out for dinner with friends all the time and we occupy a table and wait for the entire crew to show before we order. Nobody has ever asked me to leave while we wait for our slow poke friends. I guess if they ordered us out and we refused we would be trespassing. I don't go to Starbucks but my understanding is that they pride themselves as a sit down, use their wifi, conduct your business and socialize as need be. The price they charge for coffee I guess they can afford that kind of reputation. I don't know if this was a racially caused event or not but I think that it could be interpreted that way. Finally, there is a McDonalds in Decateur that we always stop on our way to the metroplex with nice clean restrooms. Sometimes we buy food, sometimes not. And restaurants are not just for meals but also much business is conducted after a meal and a drink. When I go out with the wife I try not to abuse my time and make others wait but when I have reserved a table for business purposes I don't feel that I have to rush out because there is a line at the door.

As with most everything, it is situationally dependent. Starbucks does tend to market themselves as a place to hang out. More of an experience than just a place to drink your coffee and be on your way.

But there are other situations where you really do need to get moving. My wife and I went to a very popular BBQ place in Saint Louis. The line took 2+ hours, and as we were waiting, they periodically crossed things off the white board as they ran out. We eventually got to the fairly small dining area and they were actively shooing people off the tables after they had finished eating. Given the situation, most folks took it upon themselves to eat with some haste so it was only needed in a couple cases that I saw. Basically, someone would come by and clear the table for you. If you didn't take the hint within a few minutes, a manager came by to ask you politely to leave so others could sit down.

In the video, it didn't look like the place was full, and the two guys appeared to be calm, even after they were confronted by police. Witnesses came to the men's defense at the time and later when talking to reporters. Starbucks' CEO has made it clear that the manager's actions were against company policy. So I think it is safe to say that the manager exercised poor judgment. Was this motivated by racism? Who knows. It could be that the manager didn't like men (I think I saw that the manager is a woman), or it could just be that she was having a bad day. Or maybe she ran her Starbucks location like the "soup nazi" from Seinfeld and routinely told everyone who sat down without buying something to get out immediiately. Regardless, the men were also at fault for not leaving when asked. That part is simple. If you are on someone else's property and they ask you to leave, then leave. They could have complained later to corporate if they thought the manager was out of line.

Abraham wrote:Loiters should be booted.

This isn't california.

Non spending louts should not be tolerated.

I actually agree with you (within reason). Folks should eat their meal / drink their coffee and move on. A lot of folks disagree with us, though.

One of my pet peeves is folks who want to linger over their meal at a restaurant. It is not uncommon for me to sit down after others have started eating, and I am able to place my order, eat my food, and pay the check while they are still eating their entrees. This is when I am with my wife. When I am by myself, there is an even greater disparity between myself and the loiterers. I want to tell them "look buddy, move on with the rest of your day / night / week. Other people are waiting for a table." And it's not just California. This tendency to loiter, long after you have had a reasonable amount of time to consume whatever you ordered, is alive and well in Texas.

I fear that we are in the minority, though. At least it would appear that this is the case based on what I have seen. But businesses are free to have whatever policy they choose. As long as they make the policy clear and apply it consistently, I really don't have an issue with it.

cyphertext wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Two well dressed men sitting calmly in a Starbucks (per witness statements and the arrest video) asked to use the bathroom. The manager refused since they had not yet bought anything. Legally OK, but against company policy. The manager then asked them to leave and they refused. Manager called the cops.

Replace the description of 2 black men with two white women, and this would not have happened. It just would not have. Starbucks is very facilitating to folks who want to sit there and not actively buy things. You can walk into a Starbucks pretty much anywhere and find people conducting business meetings, or just sitting on their computer taking advantage of the free Wi-Fi.

This manager was within his/her legal rights, but was violating corporate policy per their CEO. And this manager exercised extremely poor judgment, to say the least.

The two men were at fault for refusing to leave. They should have left this private business as soon as the manager asked them to do so.

We don't know if it would have happened to two white women or not. Does Starbucks have a policy to just let folks loiter in their shop? Take up space and services without being a paying customer? If I paid for a $5 cup of coffee and there were no places to sit due to freeloaders, I doubt I would be back... seems like you would not want to entice folks to just hang out without buying any of your products.

Fair enough. I'm sure it happens all the time, and if so the majority of those arrested should be white women given their customer demographics. It should be easy enough to find the multitude of news reports supporting this.

Yes, people sit at Starbucks locations with their computers open while they conduct work or surf the internet. They do this long after they have had a reasonable amount of time to consume their drink. But we don't need to guess about their company policy. The CEO of the company has publicly stated that the manager was wrong in this case.

BTW, I don't disagree with you about this being a dumb policy. I also get irritated waiting for a table at a restaurant while people who have finished their meal sit and have a conversation. But that is policy at Starbucks.

imkopaka wrote: Why are so many people so quick to replace facts with hypotheticals all of a sudden? That's a great way to start a fight. This is a nice forum - let's keep it that way.

OK, stick to the facts.

Starbucks is a place where people routinely sit around for hours while not actively consuming things they have bought.

In the video, the men were "neatly" dressed, meaning they were not wearing rags or ripped up clothing.

The men were calm and restrained in the video even while being arrested.

Witnesses claimed that the men did nothing to cause a commotion.

The CEO of Starbucks has stated that this manager acted contrary to company policy.

The manager refused to let the men use the bathroom, ordered them to leave, and called the police when they refused to do so.

None of these facts were "replaced" in my original post. And my "hypothetical" was based on actual observations of the treatment of folks in Starbucks locations. I have no idea whether this manager has a history of calling the police to arrest people who sit in this restaurant without buying things. I suppose it is possible that this happens all the time at this location.

IMHO, the manager exercised extremely poor judgment, at best. And the men should have left when they were asked to do so. As our President once famously said about another incident, there were bad actors on both sides.

Two well dressed men sitting calmly in a Starbucks (per witness statements and the arrest video) asked to use the bathroom. The manager refused since they had not yet bought anything. Legally OK, but against company policy. The manager then asked them to leave and they refused. Manager called the cops.

Replace the description of 2 black men with two white women, and this would not have happened. It just would not have. Starbucks is very facilitating to folks who want to sit there and not actively buy things. You can walk into a Starbucks pretty much anywhere and find people conducting business meetings, or just sitting on their computer taking advantage of the free Wi-Fi.

This manager was within his/her legal rights, but was violating corporate policy per their CEO. And this manager exercised extremely poor judgment, to say the least.

The two men were at fault for refusing to leave. They should have left this private business as soon as the manager asked them to do so.