TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: Starbucks CEO said he doesn't want people with guns in his stores. I don't know what you mean by everyone follow the same house rules. The stores are not posted yet (I assume) but he said he doesn't want guns in his stores. I don't go to Starbucks either and I think it is discriminating if they ban legal law abiding citizens from carrying concealed. Can they legally do it, yes. My original point was that stores do not have universal power to ban people. If you were barefoot and they had posted no shoes no service I am sure you could still use their restrooms (public places), but they might not sell you their coffee.

It's, by definition, not discriminating when you ask everyone to do the same thing. If he had special rules for some people, like no armed black folks or no gun owners regardless if they carry, then that would be discrimination. You just don't like the rule they are talking about having. Not the same thing and it minimizes real discrimination when you lump it together like that.

Their CEO is not asking everyone to do the same thing. He says if you have a gun, legally concealed and you have a CHL or are open carry you are not welcome in Starbucks. He could just as easily have said if you wear a hat stay out. Or perhaps glasses (the glasses part would have brought him a disability suit as I can't see for darn without my glasses). He has the leagl right to keep gun bearing individuals out of his stores but he is not treating everyone the same. I understand where this all came from, open carry people pushing their point in his stores. So because one group of somewhat fanatical people are being denied entrance those of us that are not in that group are also being denied entrance. But you won't see my money going to Starbucks. Next maybe the Texans pro-choice people may start meetings at Starbucks. He going to ban them too? They push their stores as meeting places, drink their expensive coffee, use their wireless internet, get your work done, socialize. Just don't meet for topics their CEO doesn't like and as I said before he has his own agenda and it is not 2nd ammendment rights. If you believe that this is because of lost business that's fine. I believe it is his left wing agenda.

EEllis wrote:It's, by definition, not discriminating when you ask everyone to do the same thing. If he had special rules for some people

If you agree his stated exemption from the request is discrimination, then we're making progress.

bizarrenormality wrote:

EEllis wrote:It's, by definition, not discriminating when you ask everyone to do the same thing. If he had special rules for some people

If you agree his stated exemption from the request is discrimination, then we're making progress.

What exemption?

rotor wrote: Their CEO is not asking everyone to do the same thing. He says if you have a gun, legally concealed and you have a CHL or are open carry you are not welcome in Starbucks. He could just as easily have said if you wear a hat stay out. Or perhaps glasses (the glasses part would have brought him a disability suit as I can't see for darn without my glasses). He has the leagl right to keep gun bearing individuals out of his stores but he is not treating everyone the same. I understand where this all came from, open carry people pushing their point in his stores. So because one group of somewhat fanatical people are being denied entrance those of us that are not in that group are also being denied entrance. But you won't see my money going to Starbucks. Next maybe the Texans pro-choice people may start meetings at Starbucks. He going to ban them too? They push their stores as meeting places, drink their expensive coffee, use their wireless internet, get your work done, socialize. Just don't meet for topics their CEO doesn't like and as I said before he has his own agenda and it is not 2nd ammendment rights. If you believe that this is because of lost business that's fine. I believe it is his left wing agenda.

Is your argument that if he told everyone with a hat to stay out he is discriminating against bald people? Because otherwise I have no idea how he isn't treating everyone the same who he says no guns at all. Anti gun, 2nd A rights, blah, blah, and I've heard it before. That still doesn't explain how you twist it into discrimination.

Did you read the letter?

bizarrenormality wrote:Did you read the letter?

Yes but if you want to play 20 questions or quiz me I'm out.

I asked because the exemption is there plain as day. But whatever. G'night.