7 ms·

Can someone explain to me what Starbucks did wrong here? As far as I've read, there were a pair of men loitering in the store for an extended period of time.

Can someone explain to me what Starbucks did wrong here? As far as I've read, there were a pair of men loitering in the store for an extended period of time. They did not purchase anything so this is the very definition of loitering. The store was very busy and someone from Starbucks asked them to leave. They refused. At that point, the same person from Starbucks called the cops because they refused to leave. The cops came, and eventually arrested them after they refused to comply with instructions. They were taken to the police station, but Starbucks did not intend to press charges so they were let go. What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-customer that refuses to leave your store?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
izzydata 9y ago
They claim that there was a number of other people at the starbucks who also didn't order anything and weren't arrested.
pwinnski 9y ago
When you're Starbucks, have marketed yourself for years as a "third place" where people can hang out, and have a policy to not kick out people who aren't causing trouble, and you call the cops on the two black men, but not on the white people also sitting in the same store without purchasing anything, you've done something wrong. Other customers were speaking up, pointing out white customers sitting there without purchases, as the cops were leading the two black men out of the store in handcuffs.
- tenpies 9y ago
  I can buy that, but then I can't understand why they refused to leave. There is an unwritten contract between any cafe and the public: purchasing any item - even the tiniest coffee - and you also get the option of staying at the cafe for a period of time. Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > I can't understand why they refused to leave Because they were being asked to leave on a discriminatory basis. > Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract Attempting to enforce a contract with racial bias is illegal and, ultimately, unenforceable.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - abhi3 9y ago
    > but then I can't understand why they refused to leave. Why did Rosa Park not give up her seat? Or Why did Gandhi choose to be thrown out of the train rather move out of first class? Because they knew that they were being treated unequally.
    - nortiero 9y ago
      Rosa Parks paid her fare before seating.
      - mygo 9y ago
        Speaking of unwritten rules, there were actual written rules that black people had to give up their seats when asked by a white person, couldn’t drink from the same water fountains, etc. actual. written. rules. So even though she paid her fare, the rules at the time were that she had to give up her seat when asked. So not the best counter-point, unless you agree that, whether or not money has been paid, and written or not, bullshit is bullshit. And getting kicked out of a cafe when there are other peaceful loiterers who were not also kicked out, is bullshit.
        nortiero 9y ago
        It is not a counterpoint, just a way to show the limits of an overblown analogy. You should appreciate the moral difference between Parks' and Gandhi's deliberate approach and the entitled arrogance of those two gentlemen, whose actions would be of no relevance if not for their skin color. Strange times. But but! If I'm wrong and the guys were acting a protest against overpriced dairy product shady dealers -- then they will have all the support that my limited means offer and unlimited appreciation. edit: gratitude, not appreciation, silly me.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jonnybgood 9y ago
> They did not purchase anything so this is the very definition of loitering. No, that's not the definition of loitering. They had a purpose to be there. They were waiting for a friend.
orbitingpluto 9y ago
Empathy? Rudimentary research skills?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mozumder 9y ago
They don't do the same to the white customers who also loiter at the same shop. As usual, rules become guidelines for the privileged.
yardie 9y ago
Going to the store and not buying anything is certainly not the definition of loitering. I’m just going to come right out and say it. Your post is racist bullshit.
sfoblows2017 9y ago
I can explain context and you have no insight into it. Nor do I, but I wont assume anything.
colorincorrect 9y ago
i heard about this situation from a clickbait article that stated something along the lines of "starbucks removes customers from store for being black", but this is the first time hearing the narrative of them loitering and refusing to leave. the original videos of the situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdFJAKFvVNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdFJAKFvVNs) only goes so far in terms of clarification. it certainly seems like management overstepped at some point, but when?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
astura 9y ago
They told the manager they were waiting for someone, and they were - to discuss (IIRC) real estate - the guy they were waiting for showed up while they were getting arrested, obviously very distraught. If two middle age white guys were waiting in a Starbucks for a colleague to show up, there no way in hell the manager would ask them to leave - that's literally what Starbucks is for. That's what the Starbucks manager did wrong - the men knew they were being asked to leave because they were black men, not because they didn't order. They weren't causing trouble and weren't doing anything different from the white patrons - during the arrest some white patrons were pointing out that didn't order either yet weren't asked to leave.
Anechoic 9y ago
The store was very busy and someone from Starbucks asked them to leave. Do you have a link for this? My understanding was that one of the men asked for the bathroom code and was told the bathroom was for paying customers only. When he sat down, the manager called the police. I haven't seen any indication that management actually asked them to leave (but I certainly may have missed it). I can't understand why they refused to leave They were waiting for the rest of their party to show up.
- fencepost 9y ago
  The man being refused the bathroom code before making a purchase was a separate story and location on a bad weekend for Starbucks. From being told about it, he was refused the code because "the bathrooms are for customers," then started recording on his phone as he asked a white guy leaving the bathroom whether he'd ordered anything and whether he'd had any problems when he requested the code.
  - Anechoic 9y ago
    You're referring to the LA location incident that happened a few months ago and just popped up recently. Last week's Philly incident also involved a black guy being denied a bathroom code.
dbt00 9y ago
Starbucks the organization did nothing wrong. The Starbucks manager on behalf of the organization violated stated Starbucks policy (both nationally and in the region) by requiring people in their space to purchase something to remain; Starbucks the organization is now taking corrective action to ensure that everyone who works for or is a patron of Starbucks has the same expectations going forward. The argument is not nor has it ever been, "is a patrons only policy wrong?" The argument is "telling patrons they don't have to purchase an item every time they are in your store and then abrogating that agreement only if you're black" is wrong and illegal, and secondarily (not that you even asked) that the cops should not have arrested anyone once they got there; they should have deescalated the situation. The bystanders were right, and the authority figure was wrong; they listened to the wrong people. As far as what you've read: in this moment they were meeting a friend. Waiting to order your coffee until your friend gets there so you're drinking coffee together is polite, and is kind of the whole point of meeting for coffee. Meeting for "oh I already finished my coffee, now isn't this awkward" isn't a plan I've ever made. > What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-customer that refuses to leave your store? State that up front and enforce it without a racial disparity. Starbucks want people to always come to their stores to meet and hang out because they sell more coffee that way. It's in their interest to not enforce a purchaser only policy.
finnthehuman 9y ago
For a legal explanation: https://youtu.be/dvTMSvbHRBk?t=10 https://youtu.be/dvTMSvbHRBk?t=10

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

izzydata 9y ago

They claim that there was a number of other people at the starbucks who also didn't order anything and weren't arrested.

pwinnski 9y ago

When you're Starbucks, have marketed yourself for years as a "third place" where people can hang out, and have a policy to not kick out people who aren't causing trouble, and you call the cops on the two black men, but not on the white people also sitting in the same store without purchasing anything, you've done something wrong. Other customers were speaking up, pointing out white customers sitting there without purchases, as the cops were leading the two black men out of the store in handcuffs.

tenpies 9y ago
I can buy that, but then I can't understand why they refused to leave. There is an unwritten contract between any cafe and the public: purchasing any item - even the tiniest coffee - and you also get the option of staying at the cafe for a period of time. Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > I can't understand why they refused to leave Because they were being asked to leave on a discriminatory basis. > Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract Attempting to enforce a contract with racial bias is illegal and, ultimately, unenforceable.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- abhi3 9y ago
  > but then I can't understand why they refused to leave. Why did Rosa Park not give up her seat? Or Why did Gandhi choose to be thrown out of the train rather move out of first class? Because they knew that they were being treated unequally.
  - nortiero 9y ago
    Rosa Parks paid her fare before seating.
    - mygo 9y ago
      Speaking of unwritten rules, there were actual written rules that black people had to give up their seats when asked by a white person, couldn’t drink from the same water fountains, etc. actual. written. rules. So even though she paid her fare, the rules at the time were that she had to give up her seat when asked. So not the best counter-point, unless you agree that, whether or not money has been paid, and written or not, bullshit is bullshit. And getting kicked out of a cafe when there are other peaceful loiterers who were not also kicked out, is bullshit.
      - nortiero 9y ago
        It is not a counterpoint, just a way to show the limits of an overblown analogy. You should appreciate the moral difference between Parks' and Gandhi's deliberate approach and the entitled arrogance of those two gentlemen, whose actions would be of no relevance if not for their skin color. Strange times. But but! If I'm wrong and the guys were acting a protest against overpriced dairy product shady dealers -- then they will have all the support that my limited means offer and unlimited appreciation. edit: gratitude, not appreciation, silly me.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jonnybgood 9y ago

> They did not purchase anything so this is the very definition of loitering. No, that's not the definition of loitering. They had a purpose to be there. They were waiting for a friend.

orbitingpluto 9y ago

Empathy? Rudimentary research skills?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mozumder 9y ago

They don't do the same to the white customers who also loiter at the same shop. As usual, rules become guidelines for the privileged.

yardie 9y ago

Going to the store and not buying anything is certainly not the definition of loitering. I’m just going to come right out and say it. Your post is racist bullshit.

sfoblows2017 9y ago

I can explain context and you have no insight into it. Nor do I, but I wont assume anything.

colorincorrect 9y ago

i heard about this situation from a clickbait article that stated something along the lines of "starbucks removes customers from store for being black", but this is the first time hearing the narrative of them loitering and refusing to leave. the original videos of the situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdFJAKFvVNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdFJAKFvVNs) only goes so far in terms of clarification. it certainly seems like management overstepped at some point, but when?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

astura 9y ago

They told the manager they were waiting for someone, and they were - to discuss (IIRC) real estate - the guy they were waiting for showed up while they were getting arrested, obviously very distraught. If two middle age white guys were waiting in a Starbucks for a colleague to show up, there no way in hell the manager would ask them to leave - that's literally what Starbucks is for. That's what the Starbucks manager did wrong - the men knew they were being asked to leave because they were black men, not because they didn't order. They weren't causing trouble and weren't doing anything different from the white patrons - during the arrest some white patrons were pointing out that didn't order either yet weren't asked to leave.

Anechoic 9y ago

The store was very busy and someone from Starbucks asked them to leave. Do you have a link for this? My understanding was that one of the men asked for the bathroom code and was told the bathroom was for paying customers only. When he sat down, the manager called the police. I haven't seen any indication that management actually asked them to leave (but I certainly may have missed it). I can't understand why they refused to leave They were waiting for the rest of their party to show up.

fencepost 9y ago
The man being refused the bathroom code before making a purchase was a separate story and location on a bad weekend for Starbucks. From being told about it, he was refused the code because "the bathrooms are for customers," then started recording on his phone as he asked a white guy leaving the bathroom whether he'd ordered anything and whether he'd had any problems when he requested the code.
- Anechoic 9y ago
  You're referring to the LA location incident that happened a few months ago and just popped up recently. Last week's Philly incident also involved a black guy being denied a bathroom code.

dbt00 9y ago

Starbucks the organization did nothing wrong. The Starbucks manager on behalf of the organization violated stated Starbucks policy (both nationally and in the region) by requiring people in their space to purchase something to remain; Starbucks the organization is now taking corrective action to ensure that everyone who works for or is a patron of Starbucks has the same expectations going forward. The argument is not nor has it ever been, "is a patrons only policy wrong?" The argument is "telling patrons they don't have to purchase an item every time they are in your store and then abrogating that agreement only if you're black" is wrong and illegal, and secondarily (not that you even asked) that the cops should not have arrested anyone once they got there; they should have deescalated the situation. The bystanders were right, and the authority figure was wrong; they listened to the wrong people. As far as what you've read: in this moment they were meeting a friend. Waiting to order your coffee until your friend gets there so you're drinking coffee together is polite, and is kind of the whole point of meeting for coffee. Meeting for "oh I already finished my coffee, now isn't this awkward" isn't a plan I've ever made. > What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-customer that refuses to leave your store? State that up front and enforce it without a racial disparity. Starbucks want people to always come to their stores to meet and hang out because they sell more coffee that way. It's in their interest to not enforce a purchaser only policy.

finnthehuman 9y ago

For a legal explanation: https://youtu.be/dvTMSvbHRBk?t=10 https://youtu.be/dvTMSvbHRBk?t=10