Tags: starbucks | tempe | police

Police Kicked Out of Starbucks Should Call for Boycott

Police Kicked Out of Starbucks Should Call for Boycott
A new flat plastic lid that does not need a straw is shown on a cup of Starbucks iced tea on July 9, 2018. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

By
Wednesday, 24 July 2019 11:47 AM Current | Bio | Archive

Thank you, Charles Dickens.

Because of "A Tale Of Two Cities," Starbucks has the perfect title for its social-engineering agenda.

Two controversial incidents, in two cities, at two coffee houses — and two entirely different tales about how the Starbucks’ brass handled them.

In both instances, the lasting impacts have as much to do with what isn’t happening, as what is. Let’s compare:

Incident Number One: In 2018, two men, who happened to be black, had been sitting in a Philadelphia Starbucks without ordering anything. One asked for the code to unlock the bathroom. Following policy, the store manager denied that request, and asked them to leave since they were not revenue-generating patrons. The men refused, and the manager called the police. The police repeatedly asked the men to leave, but again, they refused. According to the police chief, the men were disrespectful towards officers, and eventually arrested, but charges were later dropped.

Incident Number Two: Six police officers in a Tempe, Arizona, Starbucks — all of whom had done what people are supposed to do when visiting a coffeeshop, namely buy coffee — were asked by the Starbucks manager to leave.

The reason was because one person “did not feel safe” in their presence. Notice I didn’t say “patron” or “customer,” since that person could well have been taking up a table, using the bathrooms, and staying indefinitely without buying anything.

Let’s get this straight: a person, who might not have purchased anything, whining that his/her entitlement of a Starbucks’ “safe space” is being violated, carries more weight than six paying police officers, several of whom were veterans.

But the hypocrisy in how Starbucks handled both situations is mind-blowing.

Immediately following the Philadelphia incident, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson jetted across the country to meet the “aggrieved” and offer a “face-to-face apology.” In addition, both he and then-Chairman Howard Schultz blasted their manager’s decision as reprehensible. Her time at Starbucks was over.

The company then closed all 8,000 stores for a day of racial bias training, while lavishing a financial settlement on the two men.

All of this despite Starbucks, by its own admission, pronouncing guilt before knowing the facts. In the CEO’s own words: "I wanted to… let you know of our plans to investigate the pertinent facts and make any necessary changes to our practices that would help prevent such an occurrence from ever happening again.”

But how can you apologize first, and then investigate the pertinent facts?

Totally lost on the Starbucks executives was that the manager was following company policy; namely, that one must be a paying customer to use the bathrooms.

Now let’s contrast that with Tempe:

Neither the CEO nor Chairman flew out to offer an apology to the police — who, for the record, didn’t violate any Starbucks’ rules. Instead, the cops got a dime-a-dozen Executive V.P.

And Starbucks wouldn’t even say if the manager would be disciplined, let alone fired.

So much for anti-discrimination training, since discriminate is exactly what the Tempe barista did. But somehow, that’s acceptable. Sure, they issued a scripted apology about how much they value police blah-blah-blah, but that’s where it ended.

Incomprehensibly, the Tempe police union, and, ultimately, police nationwide, let Starbucks off the hook.

Rather than play hard ball and give Starbucks a taste of its own bitter brew, the union punted a golden opportunity by choosing meaningless rhetoric.

“We look forward to working collaboratively with (Starbucks) on this important dialogue," it said.

You’re holding all the cards, and that’s the best you can do? Newsflash: anytime “looking forward,” “collaboratively,” and “dialogue,” are in a press release, it’s all fluff.

But police can still whip up their own brew. They should:

— Organize a boycott of Starbucks for a predetermined time to illustrate their muscle. If anyone has the staying power, it’s the women and men in Blue.

— Ramp up the “coffee with a cop” program at competing coffee shops. If community outreach is the goal, no self-resecting officer can hold those meetings in a Starbucks. Ever.

— Investigate filing a discrimination lawsuit. Any settlements could be used to fund police/community initiatives.

— Launch a national ad campaign stating that discrimination is wrong.

Allowing Starbucks off scot-free sends the message that disrespecting officers has no repercussions. And the results of disrespecting police are everywhere: talking back; disobeying direct commands; throwing objects at officers and attacking them during protests; invading personal space by shoving cameras inches from their faces; celebrating songs about killing cops; calling police “racist” and “corrupt” without justification; and for some, murdering police.

The commercial could end by asking those who feel unsafe in the presence of police whom they’ll call while being robbed or assaulted.

To America’s police: there’s no time for a coffee break. Your fifteen minutes are here. Time to strike back while the "brew-haha" is hot.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, Freindly Fire Zone Media. Read more reports from Chris FreindClick Here Now.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Freind
Two controversial incidents, in two cities, at two coffee houses — and two entirely different tales about how the Starbucks’ brass handled them.
starbucks, tempe, police
831
2019-47-24
Wednesday, 24 July 2019 11:47 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved