Starbucks (Philadelphia)...why do we love to hate?
There's something strangely planned about two men who walk into a private establishment, ask for access to use the bathroom (which presumably means they need to "go"), yet after refusing to purchase anything and having been denied access to the bathroom...simply sit down in said establishment and refuse not only the establishment's request to leave but also the police' request to leave. What happened to the bathroom?
NOTE: There is no justification for the bad actions of any human who nourishes hate...and justifies this hate based on any category.
Hate based on skin color...or any category...legitimate issue...but mutually exclusive from what this is turning into.
Discrimination based on skin color...or any category...legitimate issue...but mutually exclusive from what this is turning into.
A little mutual respect, empathy and human decency from all parties might have gone a long way and kept this from ever having hit the headlines...or YouTube...or this blog...
It's like they didn't really need to use the bathroom.
It's like they wanted to be arrested.
It's like they knew they would be on camera...and were hoping for the visceral YouTube reaction.
It's like they knew there was a bad human (manager) behind the counter who is infected with the disease of hate and prejudice based on skin color and probably other "categories" of human.
It's like they knew there were disparate circumstances where some patrons were allowed to do what others were not--which is legitimately poor business practice and legitimately reprehensible human behavior.
It's like this was a well planned and well executed, intentional targeting of either a human or private industry--or both.
Since when does one hate-infected, prejudiced human prove that an entire system--all of it or all of "them"--is structured against any category of humanity?
If that's not a gate to the slippery slope of flawed logic...it's halfway down the slope!
Using the same logic, we can extrapolate for "bad actors" with "bent" behavior WITHIN any category of humans...well then, "they" must ALL be this way.
Or why not?
On the surface, this does not appear to be progressive...in fact right the opposite.
Broad, sweeping (and negative) assumptions and assertions based on data points are a poor mechanism via which to claim empirical truth...especially when we mirror this logic in the exact same manner--towards other categories and other circumstances.
I know and have experienced, researched and witnessed through the words of others from all manner of human category--too many counter-truths (data points) to believe in the empirical truth claims that continue to assert themselves via the microphone of public opinion.
If data points make empirical truths...then we are all doomed in so many disparate ways that don't even make sense; and sooner than you can say "jack robinson."
Since when do we not wait for "Paul Harvey" and get all the facts (the rest of the story)?
Why do we love to hate?!
In defense of private industry (note: that doesn't read in defense of bad humans) and our personal rights as "we the people":
- No matter what some may say, what have we just validated?
- Are there not formal and official and so many more civil ways to handle human conflict--than to stir up a bunch of hate and open up all kinds of unwanted possibilities?
- Are private establishments are no longer private?
- What happened to "no shirt, no shoes, no service?"
- This is a slippery slope for private business and our personal rights as "we the people."
- What's next? No matter what some may say, if this circumstance is validated as "approved" then if it's not a slippery slope...it's the gate to the slope.
- Just because an establishment has clean bathrooms and good WIFI doesn't give non-paying customers an entitlement to take up space.
- If it's allowed...then it's allowed.
- If it's not allowed...then it's not allowed.
- If it's allowed for some and not others...then of course it's wrong and the company should be made aware for sure. Protest even, boycott even--on the streets, in public domain.
- If the company doesn't handle bad actors--then the company will suffer.
- No establishment is off limits if Starbucks isn't off limits.
- I've been to plenty of Starbucks that require purchase before providing access to bathrooms simply because of the manner in which some humans conduct themselves and the negative effects they have on a private establishment.
NOTE: The last thing we need is the government sticking it's fingers into this.
- Private business has a right to protect and run their business the best way they know how...for better or for worse. If they muck it up...then it will catch up with them for sure.
- Consumers have a right to take their $$ wherever they want.
- If you don't like Starbucks...don't give them your money.
- People who squat in seats intended for paying customers and refuse to pay for anything in a private establishment have very little rights.
- What's next, Ruth's Chris Steakhouse then my house?
- These guys were asked to leave a private establishment and they refused to comply.
- These guys were asked by police to leave a private establishment and they refused to comply.
- This is about something much bigger here than what we are seeing on the media...
- And a very slippery slope if we validate it...
- It doesn't matter if there are squatters everywhere else--there are always exceptions and every business has a right to run as they best see fit--but if we make it the RULE that squatters can occupy any private space without complying to some degree or another to social and legal norms...then there are no barriers to copy cat in any private establishment.