Starbucks Put through the Grinder (Open Thread)

On Tuesday, the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, published an open letter attempting to explain his company’s latest approach to the “open carry” issue.  The company finds itself in an awkward position.  Pro-open-carry individuals have staged “Starbucks Appreciation Days” at some Starbucks locations.  During these events, participants openly carried their guns.  In response, anti-gun activists have staged anti-open-carry events and put pressure on Starbucks, seeking to have the company ban guns from their stores.  These competing events have positioned the company in the middle of a political firestorm.  Thus, Schultz’s letter, in which he states the company’s newest approach. 

Previously, Starbucks sensibly allowed state and local laws to dictate whether or not people could openly carry weapons into their stores.  If the store was in an “open-carry” state, then guns were allowed on Starbucks premises; if not in an open-carry state, then guns were not allowed to be openly carried into their stores.  The new policy, from Schultz’s letter:

… I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas. …

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

Fair enough, although Schultz’s implication that those who carry weapons can’t be safely confronted is insulting to law-abiding citizens, and he also seems to have forgotten to ask “those who champion” gun control to “please respect that Starbucks” will continue to allow gun-owning customers to respectfully decline his respectful request that they leave their guns at home.

Again, in my opinion, businesses have, and should always have, the right to make rules about whatever goes on in their establishments. That said, they must then live with the consequences of their decisions.

If gun-control advocates boycott businesses because they allow guns, so be it.   If gun-owners boycott businesses because they ban guns, so be it. That’s the way capitalism works.

You take your lumps.

Schultz is trying to avoid losing customers on either side of this explosive issue, which is understandable.  He’s been put in a hard place by activists from both sides.  It’s his problem to deal with.  He makes millions of dollars a year, running a billion-dollar company, because he has to make these hard choices.   One Forbes story seems to say that perhaps his letter wasn’t such a great solution:

Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions: while attempting to clarify Starbucks’ position, Schultz’s open letter unintentionally sows confusion …

Simply put: Yesterday, guns were tolerated in Starbucks stores. Today, guns are still tolerated in Starbucks stores – with a splash of “grudgingly”. A distinction tantamount to explaining the difference between an Americano and a Cappuccino to someone who thinks in terms of “coffee with milk.” …

The difference between a good marketer and a great marketer: knowing when to keep your head down and not stand out from the competition.

Better to have said nothing.  Interestingly enough, people on both sides of the issue see the decision to continue to allow guns in Starbucks stores, if only “grudgingly”, as a victory for their side.  See here for an example of the pro-gun-control viewpoint and here for an example of the pro-Second-Amendment viewpoint.

It’s indisputable that We the People have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.  It’s our constitutional right, according to the Second Amendment, as confirmed by numerous court decisions and local and state laws.  Here’s my problem with Schultz’s decision, which stigmatizes those who merely exercise a God-given, constitutional right:

What other rights could next be infringed upon by businesses simply because some people feel not “comfortable” or not “relaxed” or find it “unsettling” or “upsetting” when they observe a fellow citizen exercising them?

By infringed upon, I mean being singled out and issued a very public but “respectful request” to “respect [a] request” to cease and desist exercising said right in that company’s establishments.

As stated before, any business has a right to make its own rules and let the chips fall where they may.  What follows is a simple thought exercise.

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if Burqa-wearing women are sitting at the next table. (Or even Burqa-wearing men.)  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not wear Burqas (or Catholic school uniforms or yarmulkes or Sikh turbans) into his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if cross-dressing men are sitting at the next table.  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not cross-dress when patronizing his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if someone sitting at the next table is reading “Mein Kampf” or “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or “Dreams from my Father”.  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not read books in his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if someone is watching Miley Cyrus twerking with Robin Thicke or Beyonce shaking her ample booty on an iPad?  Would Schultz respectfully request customers to not openly carry electronic devices into his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if Navy SEALS or cops or SWAT team members are seated at the next table.  Would Schultz respectfully request members of the military or police officers to not wear their identifying badges or uniforms into his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if Katie Couric or Matt Drudge or James O’Keefe is seated nearby, with a video camera recording the scene.  Would Schultz respectfully request members of the media to stay out of his stores?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, because every so often KKK members, La Raza members, Tea Partiers, or Planned Parenthood activists meet at Starbucks to discuss their various points of view.  Would Schultz respectfully request all such groups to meet elsewhere?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if most of the tables in the establishment are occupied by people who are celebrating the marriage of two friends who happen to be lesbians.  Would Schultz respectfully request them to take their celebrations elsewhere?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, if two men seated nearby are engaging in public displays of affection with each other?   Would Schultz respectfully request the men to cease and desist or take their business elsewhere?

Suppose customers complain that they can’t feel relaxed or comfortable while drinking their lattes, and in fact find it unsettling and upsetting, that a black person is seated nearby.  Would Schultz respectfully request that the black person (or person of any other color) leave his establishment?

You see, it’s a slippery slope when a business tries to respectfully request people to check their rights at the door.  The business may have the right to do so, but obviously they will pay the price for their decisions, when people take their business elsewhere.

What is the next group that Schultz will try to appease?  Bullies are bullies are bullies.  Which group deserves to be accommodated–bullies or citizens freely exercising their God-given, constitutional rights?  Who should stay and who should go?

By being offended, or merely unsettled, because someone else exercises his or her constitutional rights, do I have a right to expect a company to infringe upon that person’s rights so that I can feel better?  What narcissism!

Constitutional rights are RIGHTS and shall not be infringed upon.  Mr. Schultz cannot please everyone, obviously.

If his goal is to make all of his customers feel relaxed and comfortable and help them to avoid any situation they might find unsettling and upsetting, then he is on a fool’s errand.  Schultz needs to choose up sides, and be open about it, not wishy washy.  That’s a fact.

Some people will never be appeased until everyone else submits to their rules and their point of view. Such people despise individual freedom, above all else. In their philosophy, it’s their way or the highway.

Schultz was originally on the right track, but he let himself get derailed by progressive bullies.  Now it will be interesting to see what effect his decision has on the Starbucks bottom line.

#####