Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, what happened to them had to do with the appearance of their skin. Let’s not try to explain this away as anything else than what it is: discrimination/racism. Once you start saying “but they were...” you’re looking for ways to excuse the racist behavior.
The men were in the store waiting for someone and one of them wanted to use the bathroom while he was waiting. They were (literally) arrested for waiting in a store. This is a classic case of implicit bias. If you don’t find this problematic, you’re part of the problem. Keep in mind, plenty of (white) people were in the store witnessing this and found it problematic enough to film it and post it online.
It's becoming of someone educated in a European private school, but I thought you knew about such things being Ivy educated and all. I can accept if my English is "strange" (it's correct). I speak several languages which heavily influences my English. What's your excuse for such horrendous grammar?
Very lady like vocabulary, Mrs. Pierrepont.
People like me don't need to deal with such insignificant details or trivia. We leave the menial stuff to people like you.
Or just don't use the bathroom if they tell you it is for customers only. If you have to go that badly, then buy something or pee in the street. But don't go around trying to intimidate staff.
You can get a ticket for peeing in the streets. If you really need to go, just by something. Which is what those men should have done.
However, Starbucks needs to make everyone buy something. You cannot randomly apply rules to people unless you want to have this kind of legal and PR drama.
You can get a ticket for peeing in the streets. If you really need to go, just by something. Which is what those men should have done.
However, Starbucks needs to make everyone buy something. You cannot randomly apply rules to people unless you want to have this kind of legal and PR drama.
You can't expect these homeless guys to just buy something if they have no money. Most locations do state that bathrooms are for customers only. It says it right there on the door. If you need a key or a code, why bother even asking to use the bathroom if you can't afford to even buy a short cup of coffee. Take your business elsewhere. Bathrooms are for customers. If Starbucks starts allowing every bum off the streets to use their bathrooms they lost my business and many others because the place will end up being filthy. I have purchased many cups of coffee at Starbucks simply because I had to use the bathroom, and many locations maintain fairly acceptably clean bathrooms. I have a freaking gold membership based off just how many times I had to use the bathroom with Starbucks being the only option around.
How were there no witnesses around to hear how the interaction between the homeless man and the employee unfolded?
You can't expect these homeless guys to just buy something if they have no money. Most locations do state that bathrooms are for customers only. It says it right there on the door. If you need a key or a code, why bother even asking to use the bathroom if you can't afford to even buy a short cup of coffee. Take your business elsewhere. Bathrooms are for customers. If Starbucks starts allowing every bum off the streets to use their bathrooms they lost my business and many others because the place will end up being filthy. I have purchased many cups of coffee at Starbucks simply because I had to use the bathroom, and many locations maintain fairly acceptably clean bathrooms. I have a freaking gold membership based off just how many times I had to use the bathroom with Starbucks being the only option around.
How were there no witnesses around to hear how the interaction between the homeless man and the employee unfolded?
You don’t seem to be aware of the case in question. The two men were not homeless (in fact they are gainfully employed as commercial real estate agents) and there was video, which has been posted on numerous news outlets, as well several witnesses who commented in the video about the situation as it was unfolding:
The men were in Starbucks waiting for a friend/colleague. One, or maybe both, were denied use of the bathroom becase they didn’t buy anything. After being denied bathroom use, they sat back down and continued to wait for their friend. The manager called the cops on them for loitering (becase they were sitting there without buying anything). The friend they were waiting for shows up as they are being arrested. Witnesses comment that the men were not doing anything other than sitting there waiting for someone and questioned why they were even being arrested. The two men arrested are black and were dressed casually. The friend they were waiting for and most of the other witnesses were white. The Starbucks manager may also have been white (it’s assumed).
The problem, as many have pointed out, is that anyone who has been to a Starbucks knows good and damn well you can “loiter” there all day long and use the bathroom (without buying) and not have anyone second guess or question your legitimacy for being there...at least that’s the case most of the time and more likely when you look a certain way.
The question is would this have happened to these men if they were white? The answer is almost certainly no.
You don’t seem to be aware of the case in question. The two men were not homeless (in fact they are gainfully employed as commercial real estate agents) and there was video, which has been posted on numerous news outlets, as well several witnesses who commented in the video about the situation as it was unfolding:
The men were in Starbucks waiting for a friend/colleague. One, or maybe both, were denied use of the bathroom becase they didn’t buy anything. After being denied bathroom use, they sat back down and continued to wait for their friend. The manager called the cops on them for loitering (becase they were sitting there without buying anything). The friend they were waiting for shows up as they are being arrested. Witnesses comment that the men were not doing anything other than sitting there waiting for someone and questioned why they were even being arrested. The two men arrested are black and were dressed casually. The friend they were waiting for and most of the other witnesses were white. The Starbucks manager may also have been white (it’s assumed).
The problem, as many have pointed out, is that anyone who has been to a Starbucks knows good and damn well you can “loiter” there all day long and use the bathroom (without buying) and not have anyone second guess or question your legitimacy for being there...at least that’s the case most of the time and more likely when you look a certain way.
The question is would this have happened to these men if they were white? The answer is almost certainly no.
As someone that is a frequent Starbucks bathroom user knows that not all locations give free range to their toilet. Most do, but some require a key, where as others require a code. I don't mess with them key or code Starbucks. Some of the free range ones attract too many bums that I stay clear of their bathrooms.
I only saw video footage of when the cops were already there. There must have been some sort of altercation. And when I go to Starbucks, pretty much everyone has a coffee. Very rare to see someone there all day without at least getting a cup of coffee. Either way, I'm boycotting Starbucks. Unless I have to use the bathroom.
Are you saying that only white people would buy a cup of coffee if they have to use a bathroom?
If these guys really just sat there quietly, then Starbucks needs to pay them through an out of court settlement. These guys would probably get more out of court because they have no receipt, and as far as we know, no witnesses. Starbucks has the money, and the reputational risk far outweighs the financial loss. Throw them a couple mil, get some papers signed, and be done with. While at it, thrown a few more million into the inner city youth. Maybe some sort of study program that gets them addicted to caffeine to fuel future revenues.
As someone that is a frequent Starbucks bathroom user knows that not all locations give free range to their toilet. Most do, but some require a key, where as others require a code. I don't mess with them key or code Starbucks. Some of the free range ones attract too many bums that I stay clear of their bathrooms.
I only saw video footage of when the cops were already there. There must have been some sort of altercation. And when I go to Starbucks, pretty much everyone has a coffee. Very rare to see someone there all day without at least getting a cup of coffee. Either way, I'm boycotting Starbucks. Unless I have to use the bathroom.
Are you saying that only white people would buy a cup of coffee if they have to use a bathroom?
There are a few videos and eye witnesses who have recounted the encounter. A woman who filmed one video said she was in that very same Starbucks the day before waiting for her son. She was sitting there for over an hour without buying anything and was not arrested. There are several accounts of people who witnessed the whole situation. There was no altercation. The men were civil and calm. Even the police who showed up were civil and calm. It’s an obvious case of implicit bias against the men by the store manager which is why Starbucks is reacting by issuing a public apology and training employees for such scenarios.
What I’m saying is that white people would not have been arrested in an identical situation. Keep in mind the men were not there to only use the bathroom. They were there to meet with someone for a discussion and were arrested for sitting there without ordering. A coffee shop is a pretty common setting for people to sit and wait even without ordering. More than likely, if someone is waiting for someone else, they wait until the other person arrives before ordering. It’s common courtesy.
If anyone starts with the “but those men were...” nonsense, you need to honestly look at the situation: two men were waiting in a coffee shop for a friend/colleague...but got arrested for asking to use the bathroom before buying anything. If you don’t think there is something inherently wrong with that, then your bias is showing.
There are a few videos and eye witnesses who have recounted the encounter. A woman who filmed one video said she was in that very same Starbucks the day before waiting for her son. She was sitting there for over an hour without buying anything and was not arrested. There are several accounts of people who witnessed the whole situation. There was no altercation. The men were civil and calm. Even the police who showed up were civil and calm. It’s an obvious case of implicit bias against the men by the store manager which is why Starbucks is reacting by issuing a public apology and training employees for such scenarios.
What I’m saying is that white people would not have been arrested in an identical situation. Keep in mind the men were not there to only use the bathroom. They were there to meet with someone for a discussion and were arrested for sitting there without ordering. A coffee shop is a pretty common setting for people to sit and wait even without ordering. More than likely, if someone is waiting for someone else, they wait until the other person arrives before ordering. It’s common courtesy.
If anyone starts with the “but those men were...” nonsense, you need to honestly look at the situation: two men were waiting in a coffee shop for a friend/colleague...but got arrested for asking to use the bathroom before buying anything. If you don’t think there is something inherently wrong with that, then your bias is showing.
And that is why I'm saying they had to have been starting trouble, or appear destitute.
I would find out how much Starbucks makes in a day for all 8,000 of their stores and sue the sh it out of em for that amount. Corporate racism is tired and so are their policies
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can accept if my English is "strange" (it's correct). I speak several languages which heavily influences my English. What's your excuse for such horrendous grammar? 
