For Kacper

[USFREEDOM911]

You seem to have forgotten to reply to my question; so in order to help you, I have made the decision to start this thread and allow you the opportunity to respond.

Most restaurants in my city don't even have locks on the bathroom (I actually can't think of any that does) and they are not filled to the brim with homeless people and drug addicts and we have our fair share of both.

Filled to the brim.?? Who said anything about that.? All it takes is one homeless illegal to go into the BR and spend two hours taking a bath in the sink and then washing his clothes there. That ruins things for everyone. THINK

Then you ask them to leave. There is still nothing that prevents a property owner from tossing an undesirable from their property.

And if they refuse to leave?
Just thought I would add that your phrase of "undesirable" is subjective and could be used in ways that you may not be considering.

 

[Irish Exit]

You seem to have forgotten to reply to my question; so in order to help you, I have made the decision to start this thread and allow you the opportunity to respond.





And if they refuse to leave?
Just thought I would add that your phrase of "undesirable" is subjective and could be used in ways that you may not be considering.

Then have them arrested for trespassing. Undesirable is subjective as is appropriate to the situation as who is desirable at one place may not be desirable at another. You can decide who can or cannot come onto your property as capriciously as you like, government workers performing their job being the only meaningful exceptions.

 

[RB 60]

Then have them arrested for trespassing. Undesirable is subjective as is appropriate to the situation as who is desirable at one place may not be desirable at another. You can decide who can or cannot come onto your property as capriciously as you like, government workers performing their job being the only meaningful exceptions.

Sadly, that doesn't apply to cake bakers.

 

[Irish Exit]

Sadly, that doesn't apply to cake bakers.

Sure it does. You just have to do it at the individual level as opposed to the class denial level.

 

[RB 60]

Sure it does. You just have to do it at the individual level as opposed to the class denial level.

Unfortunately, it turns into the class denial level even when it's just an individual denial.

 

[Irish Exit]

Unfortunately, it turns into the class denial level even when it's just an individual denial.

Depends on how you couch it in your, "No, get the hell off my property and stay off."

 

[Legion]

Sadly, that doesn't apply to cake bakers.

Or Muslims who perform waxing.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Then have them arrested for trespassing. Undesirable is subjective as is appropriate to the situation as who is desirable at one place may not be desirable at another. You can decide who can or cannot come onto your property as capriciously as you like, government workers performing their job being the only meaningful exceptions.

But isn't having someone arrested for trespassing exactly what got the Starbucks conversation started?

 

[Irish Exit]

But isn't having someone arrested for trespassing exactly what got the Starbucks conversation started?

Yes, so? Starbucks misplayed this. Doesn't change their right to have trespassers arrested.

 

[Legion]

Yes, so? Starbucks misplayed this. Doesn't change their right to have trespassers arrested.

Now, thanks to their corporate SJW mentality, looks like the homeless problem is solved, at least while their stores are open.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, so? Starbucks misplayed this. Doesn't change their right to have trespassers arrested.

I have no problem with the guys being arrested.
I do have a problem with Starbucks being spineless, refusing to support their employee, and then being total idiots.

 

[Irish Exit]

I have no problem with the guys being arrested.
I do have a problem with Starbucks being spineless, refusing to support their employee, and then being total idiots.

That's fine. My only real concern was the timing. I have read some accounts that allegedly the police were called withing the first couple minutes of them entering the store which would suggest that management may not have even had time to discuss their intentions with the guys. I am not a fan of coffee or Starbucks so they can go under for all I really care. Wouldn't matter to me how. My local coffee place knows how I like my hot tea in winter and that is all I need.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's fine. My only real concern was the timing. I have read some accounts that allegedly the police were called withing the first couple minutes of them entering the store which would suggest that management may not have even had time to discuss their intentions with the guys. I am not a fan of coffee or Starbucks so they can go under for all I really care. Wouldn't matter to me how. My local coffee place knows how I like my hot tea in winter and that is all I need.

Transcripts of the entire incident have been posted and the Manager asked them several times to leave, they refused, she called the Cops, the Cops then asked them to leave, they
still refused, and then were arrested for trespassing.

 

[Minister of Truth]

And if they refuse to leave?
Just thought I would add that your phrase of "undesirable" is subjective and could be used in ways that you may not be considering.

If you are Starbucks, then undesirable = black.

 

[Controlled Opposition]

Starbucks undoubtedly has an army of attorneys at its disposal. They probably determined the new policy, and there is some logic to it. The stores still have the option of asking anyone to leave the premises, but they have much less risk of being repeatedly sued. The issue is more likely to fade away.