For something so legal-speak they did step in it with how they're well... offending gun owners with the "No Irish" mentality. Sebastian has more.
Robb Allen talks about how this is a self inflicted loss, largely done by "in your face OC" tactics. Give him a read given he's an expert on smart OC tactics.
Weerd has some comments too. Basically how it's not an overt changing. Starbucks didn't want to be dragged into a political fight or used as a prop. And Weerd brings up a good point
I personally have one Starbucks gift card I’ll need to use up, and then I’ll be done. I wasn’t a Starbucks Customer before this political side came to light, I won’t be a customer after. No harm, no foul. No offense, but I’m not a fan of their products or prices, but I was willing to overpay for mediocre tea, or down right terrible coffee to support them, and offset alleged “boycotts”.
I will cease and desist, and will do so with no hard feelings. They are not an anti-gun company like other groups are that directly ban firearms on premises, and support anti-rights politics with corporate monies. They simply don’t appreciate us bringing politics into their shops, and I can fully respect that."
I don't like coffee or tea so without any motivation to go Starbucks has lost another customer. And I'm thinking there's gonna be quite a few of those.
Of course this isn't enough for the Anti;s
Now some truth:
Starbucks’ new policy stops short of a ban, and Moms Demand Action will continue to pressure the company if there are additional instances of accidental shootings and open carry rallies inside stores.Sorry Starbucks, I think the gunnies will be more than willing to acquiesce to your request, but the other side isn’t as willing.
Best wishes to you.
Now If Starbucks is more worried about negative publicity from people OCing rifles and using them as a protest stage, then this works. If they're worried about negative press from gun-grabbers, then they've just encouraged them.
JayG has some thoughts on the "don't be a dick" rule. With this reminder:
It's the sad predictability of the "in-your-face" factions that carry rifles around (Tam's comment about "'Battle of Fallujah' reenactors' club meeting" hits the mark perfectly IMHO) and the response that has me shaking my head. What did y'all think was going to happen when you walked into a trendy urban coffee shop full of hipsters with a rifle on your back? Did you think the latte-sipping Apple fanboi was suddenly going to be seized by divine inspiration, tear up his Brady membership, and suddenly convert to the Church of John Moses Browning (PBUH)?
Those in the OPEN CARRY BECAUSE 'MURICA camp sometimes use the "Gay Pride" analogy - that it took waaaay over-the-top marches in order to focus the conversation on gay rights and acceptance; that those "in the closet" would have remained so their entire lives if not for brave members of their ranks who were willing to risk ridicule, personal danger, and worse to shine light on the inequality of treatment they received by society. There's a fair amount of truth to this line of thinking, however there's one very important piece missing: the media - who still shape opinions in this country - were 100% behind the gay-rights campaign.
And this bit on Free Beacon about who the CEO of Starbucks Feared more "People with guns or People on the left" But the author is ignorant of the long term memory gun owners have for grudges. (The tell is that he thinks Open-Carry Permits exist). See he thinks in a few months gun owners will have forgotten about this.
Naw, gun activists tend to be vindictive and love nothing more than stabbing "traitors" in the back.
As for my thoughts?
What'll really make the leftists heads spin is if a gay couple asked to do an open-carry wedding at a Starbucks.
Primary Lesson learnt: Do not confuse tolerance with approval.
Or as Stuart the Viking said on Robb Allen's: "please quit setting up your soapbox in our lobby"
Just because a vendor does not *object* to X does not mean that they support you using their facility, their brand, as an endorsement of X.
This can be hard to grasp because today's overculture demands this of many vendors (when it comes to "trendy" issues).
Another is: Don't sell past the close.
Starbucks was already allowing OC and CC et al. Tactically, what goal was staging protests at Starbucks intended to acomplish? Showing up with a gun on your hip for a cup of Joe to normalize carry well... that normalizes carry.
But going in a group with slung rifles is not exactly normal. Ignoring the legal issues, what was the intended goal of such an action?
Oh and this from Tam wins. Just wins. And here's her thoughts.
I'll end with this preview:
When I am politely asked to not give someone my money, it would be rude of me to ignore their request.