Black man blocked from entering NJ gym where hes a paid member and even the cops are confused

[BumRushDaShow]

312. Where do I start?

Most businesses have a policy of requiring people to buy, in order to spend time on the premises. Otherwise, it can be considered loitering.

This is not "most businesses". This is "Starbucks" and not only is that NOT on their website or posted in their stores, both the CEO Kevin Johnson AND the Executive Chairman Howard Schultz HAVE come out and reiterated this. IT is THEIR business, NOT yours. And the vast majority of the stores are OWNED BY THEM (their corporation) not by franchisees nor by these "managers".

The have tried many "approaches", but still come back to the idea of a "lounge" or "cafe", with the expectation that more often than not MOST people WILL buy something, but not all.

If a business wants to guarantee an income any other way, then they will have to CHARGE a fee just to go into the store. That way, whether someone coming in "buys something or not", the owner gets some "compensation" for the "privilege" to come into the store. This is what clubs and even movie theaters do - they charge an "entrance fee" or have a "cover charge". And then the person comes in and sits and MAY purchase other things like drinks or happy hour fare (wings, nachos, etc). I regularly go to a Movie Tavern here and I PAY for the privilege to sit in their facility to see the movie and have an option to purchase food and drink. But just outside of the theater area, there is seating for ordering food or drink where people may sit and wait without buying anything, before going into the actual theater, because once inside, they are given a menu to further order if desired.

The employee isn't a lawyer.

It's irrelevant. The individual applied "inplicit bias" to manufacture a rule on the spot and cherry-pick who to apply it to. This is why organizations (businesses and government) give TRAINING. And Starbucks is going to spend tens of millions to finally do so.

You don't even know her side.

"Her side" was displayed by WHEN she called (literally minutes after they arrived and said they were waiting for a friend) and how she described the situation on the call.

And it all comes back to: If only they'd bought a cup of coffee, to pay for the privilege of sitting there and hanging out and using the bathroom.

That is not how it works. There is no "privilege" to sit there. This is a public eating establishment that advertises itself as follows -

Our Heritage

<...>

In 1983, Howard traveled to Italy and became captivated with Italian coffee bars and the romance of the coffee experience. He had a vision to bring the Italian coffeehouse tradition back to the United States. A place for conversation and a sense of community. A third place between work and home. He left Starbucks for a short period of time to start his own Il Giornale coffeehouses and returned in August 1987 to purchase Starbucks with the help of local investors.

From the beginning, Starbucks set out to be a different kind of company. One that not only celebrated coffee and the rich tradition, but that also brought a feeling of connection.

Our mission to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time.

Expect More Than Coffee

We’re not just passionate purveyors of coffee, but everything else that goes with a full and rewarding coffeehouse experience. We also offer a selection of premium teas, fine pastries and other delectable treats to please the taste buds. And the music you hear in store is chosen for its artistry and appeal.

It’s not unusual to see people coming to Starbucks to chat, meet up or even work. We’re a neighborhood gathering place, a part of the daily routine – and we couldn’t be happier about it. Get to know us and you’ll see: we are so much more than what we brew.

We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity – from our commitment to the highest quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.

https://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information

If you use the model of "pay for the privilege", THEN YOU INSTITUTE A COVER CHARGE applied to ALL patrons.

If they had bought a cup of coffee, and were asked to leave...that would give a supposition of discrimination.

No.

When I was kicked out of a business, was I being discriminated against?

This is an apologist argument. Did your circumstances match this situation?

When my brother was kicked out and banned from several businesses, was he being discriminated against?

And what were the circumstances involving what your brother did? You can't randomly throw a scenario out there without details.

If these guys had been required to buy a cup of coffee to hang out there, and were white, would they have been discriminated against?

If it were NOT posted and if whites were a "protected class", which they aren't unless they are women or disabled, then no if they were told to leave and had not caused a disturbance that caused a disruption. They would need to find some other legal reason to argue it.

Maybe it was racism. Maybe not. Some are just assuming it was for the reason that they were black. Racism does exist. But I just don't see it here.

Of course you don't and a number of others here don't either. That is why people are given training so that the "scotoma" regarding "race" is removed. One of the popular workshop exercises that is used to show how people "perceive" things is this -



Participants are asked to look at this image and describe what they see. Some may "see" a "young woman" but others may see an "old woman". And the exercise has the participants point out what on the image alerted them to which one was "seen" until all participants can finally "see" both versions.

I think the difference may be that I'm the only one who has been kicked out of a business before, so I KNOW for a fact that you can be kicked out without it being racism. It's not that unusual.

And based on your argument, because people can "get kicked out of a business", then that negates any possibility of the reason being racism.

I think I'm the only one who has a relative who has been kicked out of, and banned, from several businesses. So I KNOW for a fact that people can be kicked out of multiple businesses without racism being involved...and that IT'S NOT THAT UNUSUAL TO BE KICKED OUT OF A BUSINESS. (My brother is argumentative and nitpicky...he'll argue with a clerk over one penny, or a sign, or the parking spaces, or you name it. He's not overly rude...but he interferes with the conducting of business, so they end up kicking him out and telling him he can't come back.)

And again, WHAT was going on with YOUR situation that has any relevance here? You can't summarily negate what happened here if what happened with you and your family is completely different. If these 2 young men had started swearing at the staff and other patrons in there or started pounding the table and otherwise being disruptive then YES they are "causing a disturbance" and should be warned and if not compliant, should be removed. Your example of your brother "arguing" has no relevance whatsover to 2 men QUIETLY and CALMLY waiting for a friend.

"Waiting While Black" should NOT be considered "disrupting the conducting of business".

It's just not that unusual to be kicked out of a place for not behaving the way the establishment wants.

"kicked out of a place for not behaving the way the establishment wants." WTF? So now we are talking about "behaving"?

So if a Muslim comes into a store around lunchtime (noon) and SILENTLY sits at a table and prostrates his hands in prayer (modifying a full kneel and bow for prayer, as observant Muslims must pray 5 times a day), then because his "behavior" may be "offensive" to the business, then the manager has some "right" to kick that man out of the restaurant because of that "behavior" as Trumpers would like to see.

Lord help us all.