TexasCHLforum.com

I sent my response to their CEO and stated my money will go elsewhere.

TexasGal wrote:
The verbiage of the letter is an earnest plea to please stop making Starbucks any public part of the gun argument--and especially pertaining to visible guns. Some in the open carry crowd just will not stop pushing all of their fellow citizens to become completely accepting of strangers to stand next to them and their children with a visible gun.

Note the wording he selects:

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone.

To me (and this is my interpretation only, yours may vary), those of the words of a smart businessman who likely supports guns, but doesn't want his store to become a tool used by both sides against each other. His position makes perfect sense. Why alienate half your customer base to please the other half, when you can simply invite all in equally? Remember, he makes money by selling coffee, not by promoting any specific agenda.

My wife does the same, by the way: she's a jeweler, and she owns an independent jewelry store in the Houston Heights area. Her area is so liberal that Sheila Jackson Lee's office is only a block away. The vast majority of her customer base swings far to the left of center, by virtue of her store's location. Any discussion of guns being welcome in her store would cause many of her customers to not just stop coming, but also convince their friends never to come in again. It would be a death knell for her business, so she avoids the topic. But don't make any mistake - she's carrying 100% of the time in there, and welcomes CHL holders to do the same. She evenJust don't force the conversation into the open while others are in the store.

A unique parallel exists here with the gay community. I don't care a person's orientation any more than I care their religion or whether they prefer Peter Pan vs. Jif peanut butter. Do what you want in your own room, and I don't care. In the business world I have hired and promoted both straight vs. gay people, and their orientation did not matter one bit, as long as they were the right person for the job.

But acceptance is not the same as embracing - and I'm not interested in embracing or celebrating alternative lifestyle choices. My wife and I have a much more conservative belief structure, and we're encouraging that in our daughter as well. So, if you force my hand on the subject, then you might not like my answer. Just be happy that I accept it, and will not use your personal choices against you in my business decisions.

The same thing happens with this latest generation of 'YouTube' open carry video makers. They're not content with easing people into the idea of being comfortable with guns - they need to make it 'in your face'. This does little to help our cause, and (as demonstrated by Mr. Schultz), can hurt us demonstrably. His letter was quite neutral - he supports the 2A, he refuses to ban, but openly requests that open carry stops in his stores. Antis perceive this as a victory, and many 2A supporters (as witnessed here) perceive this as a loss. Unfortunately, both are right, because perception is reality.

And by the way...Peter Pan is clearly better than Jif.

The RKBA movement should not be putting Corporations between a rock and a hard-spot.

The RKBA movement should be in legislators faces fixing laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment (and others).

carlson1 wrote:This may be a perfect example of people Open Carrying their rifles in the stores to make a statement causes 30.06 signs in Texas.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening.

As the Immortal Bard once said: This is why we can't have nice things.

Concealed is concealed. It is not reasonable notice for him to post a letter about Open Carry for me to stop carrying concealed. I hate their coffee...except for the White Chocolate Mocha which has eleventy bazillion calories that I don't need. So me staying away is a longstanding choice based on their prices, quality, and contradiction of being a "healthy" place!

The boss wants open guns out of his stores. He wants CJ Grisham out of his stores. He wants Open Carry Texas out of his stores. I don't think for one second think that he wants TexasCHLforum.com people out of his stores.

Purplehood wrote:The RKBA movement should not be putting Corporations between a rock and a hard-spot.

The RKBA movement should be in legislators faces fixing laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment (and others).

carlson1 wrote:This may be a perfect example of people Open Carrying their rifles in the stores to make a statement causes 30.06 signs in Texas.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening.

NBC 5 this morning used footage of people open carrying HANDGUNS into Starbucks. I could not tell which state they were in and the news talking head did not say where the footage was taken. I sent a very pointed email to NBC5 and offered to discuss the matter with them.

What hasn't been discussed yet is Starbucks locations embedded in other businesses. Our Starbucks is inside the local grocery. Some RKBA people need to crawl back under their rock.

TexasGal wrote:If I see a valid 30.06 sign at the store, I will obey it and not enter. If a manager verbally tells me he/she does not want any guns in the store, I will leave. Otherwise, I see no problem carrying concealed. Even if Texas ever allowed open carry, I would still go concealed except when in rural areas, camping, etc. Places where most would not be alarmed.

The verbiage of the letter is an earnest plea to please stop making Starbucks any public part of the gun argument--and especially pertaining to visible guns. Some in the open carry crowd just will not stop pushing all of their fellow citizens to become completely accepting of strangers to stand next to them and their children with a visible gun. As a gun enthusiast, I totally understand how gun owners feel, but before I was who I am now, I was for many years a woman who would have thrown a fit over some guy openly carrying a gun near me or my kids. I would have had no idea why or if he was some nut that was a threat or just simply negligent. These days with mass shootings being played up endlessly by the anti's we are simply not going to win this by being insensitive to those who are truly fearful and ignorant of guns. It WILL backfire.

Agreed on both points.

As I read it, they believe they're being pulled into a fight that they've got no dog in & want it to stop. There probably won't be any no gun / gun buster / 30.06 signs going up yet. But that could change if they see a need. I'm guilty of sharing & participating in the Starbucks Appreciation Days (concealed, of course), so I can't honestly say I'm not completely without fault. Per what I believe to be their intent, I'll leave them out of my 2A discussion from now on.

Guess I need a new avatar, as well.....

cprems wrote:The CEO just said NO GUNS. Which part of that are you failing to understand?

Regardless of the what the law states, he has said NO GUNS. That is effective warning and its enough for me. I'll spend my money elsewhere!

Cprems, do you have your CHL or have you actually read 30.06? This is a written request, not an oral request. You may certainly choose to do business elsewhere, as will many others, but this is in no way effective notice according to Texas law.

There is better, cheaper coffee elsewhere.

What do you expect from a company out of Seattle?


Anygunanywhere

I understand Starbucks position on this. It's regrettable they've been put in this spot. It's an example of someone with a cause exploiting a company or organization for that cause. I think Starbucks was forced to come out with something and it appears they are trying to find a happy medium that is reasonable for both sides.

mojo84 wrote:I understand Starbucks position on this. It's regrettable they've been put in this spot. It's an example of someone with a cause exploiting a company or organization for that cause. I think Starbucks was forced to come out with something and it appears they are trying to find a happy medium that is reasonable for both sides.

cprems wrote:This effectively serves as a 30.06 notice to all Texas CHL holders.

No. It doesn't.

good riddance, the only people that can get away with charging 10 bucks for a cup of coffee.....