The whole victimhood circus could have been avoided if one of the two black men who created a national who-ha at a Starbucks would have just ordered a a regular coffee (a buck 84), a cheese Danish ($2.45) or some other inexpensive item. Really, is that too much to ask?
Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson were there to use the bathroom and wait for a business meeting, but they refused to buy anything, something the store required. Presumably they were going to buy something anyway when the guy they were waiting to meet showed up. Unless they planned to commandeer tables set aside for paying customers as their no-rent offices.
But no. For some reason they found a request to follow the store's reasonable policy--one that not a few businesses have--to be unreasonable and they just sat there. The racial victimhood industry pounced after their refusal and the cops showed up to do their job. The two men were trespassing.
Before the victimhood herd claiming racial discrimination was unleashed, might someone (a reporter, perhaps) have asked the store or Starbucks: How often are "customers"--white, black, Asian, native American or whatever-- told that they have to buy something to use the facility. That a purchase was required to use the bathroom or just hang out? How many refuse to make a purchase? And what happens when they don't?
Isn't it something you ought to know before automatically assuming that the store's request to buy something was racially inspired and applied only to black men. Or should black men be exempted from a policy that applied to everyone else? If it was discovered that the request only applied to African Americans, then the charges of racial discrimination would have been be validated. The cops then should have arrested the store operator for violating laws preventing discrimination in public accommodations.
Well, no. Because the victimhood industry doesn't give a damn about facts; it serves their ego and pocketbook to launch a national shame-shame campaign. Never mind that it further divides America, the kind of "divisiveness" that they laughably insist they are trying to end.
When I'm traveling and need to use a McDonald or some other joint's restroom, I make it a practice to buy something, even it's something off the $1 menu. It's polite. It's fair. And if the store's policy requires it, it's right.
Yes, hurrah for the two men for agreeing to a $1 settlement and $200,000 for a grant program for high school students aspiring to become entrepreneurs. Yes, good for Starbucks for retraining its staff to become more knowledgeable and sensitive to everyone's rights. And yes, good that the two men remained calm and didn't resist arrest when the cops came for them (as if not resisting arrest was news).
But no, Starbucks should not have to establish a store-wide policy that defines that anyone who enters its stores as a "customer." As someone didn't have to buy anything while hanging around as long as they want without paying, or tying up their bathroom, making paying customers who need immediate relief wait.
The victimhood industry has persuaded too many people that they come first, that no one can tell them what to do, that respect for private property doesn't matter, that a reason and legitimate request is a personal or racist attack.
It is not disrespectful to request a customer to follow a store's policy in return for service. What is disrespectful is to refuse to follow a legitimate and reasonable request made by someone who has invested and worked hard to make a business a success--for everyone.
Want to subscribe to the Barbershop? Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.