@MomofWildChild The issue is that the manager didn’t do a “sweep” of the entire store and find out who had and who hadn’t bought anything. Why just kick out these two gentleman?
@partyof5 I’m sorry. 
Thought question for people: would this have happened to two white women in the same situation?
I’m not saying this was OK. I’m just telling you what the law is because everyone is quick to say everything is “illegal”. He didn’t have to do a sweep of the store. He made an extremely bad and probably racially motivated decision, but unless not being allowed to sit around at Starbucks is being “denied service” then violation of the law is a stretch.
No one is trying to excuse racist behavior, doschicos. At least I’m not. The guy likely lost his job and the cops are in hot water, too. As it all should be. It was a disgrace all the way around.
MomofWildChild, this is an instance where there were witnesses – white! – who were in disbelief, and a this is an instance where there was also a video. The poster of the video – a white woman – said in several national TV appearances that these two men were treated in a way she never has been, despite using the said Starbucks for hours on end and while using wifi.
It’s hard to believe that our society (“the land of the free and the home of the brave”) has issues with racism. It’s hard to believe that in the 21st century people are still being not just judged by the color of their skin, but AUTOMATICALLY treated as criminals due to the color of their skin. It’s hard to understand that police don’t take evidence under consideration before putting someone in jail FOR 9 HOURS.
Yet this is what happened. Which is why we’re dismayed and outraged. And deeply depressed by the idea that this is not some outlying isolated incident but a reality for millions of Americans. Who happen not to be white.
Yea. The land of the free isn’t. It is a very distressing reality.
@Himom – thanks for posting that link to the LA Fitness video. I think it would be worthwhile to everyone to follow the links and look at the videos as providing an excellent example of how the police should respond. Note that the police in that video did not make any arrest – they responded to that call but definitely were taking time to size up the situation and pretty much took on the role of observers.
In the Philadephia Starbucks case the police certainly could have asked the men what happened – and certainly when their friend arrived they could have either backed off, or politely encouraged all three men to leave with the sort of sympathetic attitude that the LA officers manifested. No one needed to be put in handcuffs or taken away.
The store manager in Philadelphia was wrong, but the police response was even more wrong. There wasn’t an active disturbance when they arrived. Plenty of time to ask everyone involved what was going on. And at most the police should have asked the men to leave – a custodial arrest is rarely appropriate for a “trespass” in a public store. The only thing that would have made a custodial arrest necessary would have been if the men had argued with police and refused to leave after being asked to by the police.
@MomofWildChild My comment (on completely different thread mind you) wasn’t directed at you. Besides, this isn’t the only thread having to do with racism right now. Check out the Syracuse thread.
But I strongly believe the answer isn’t to say the 2 black men should have just left and because they didn’t they are morons. And I don’t think the Syracuse frat incident should be excused as some “boys will be boys” behavior.
Why is it hard to believe?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/blacks-white-racism-united-states-polls/index.html found that 50% of white and 84% of black people said that black people are treated unfairly by police, for example. Even for general “prejudice against minority groups today”, 39% of white and 66% of non-white people say that it is “very serious”.
The police were probably eye-rolling at the whole stupidity of the call by the staff at that LA Fitness…
I’m sure they were … but the qustion in my mind is why the Philadelphia cops weren’t also eye rolling over the stupidity of the 911 call over two men quietly seated at a table.
@ucbalumnus – the “it’s hard” was directed not at people who actually read news and pay attention. Clearly there are people even on this very thread who can’t admit a racist incident happened despite first hand witnesses, a video, and facts that aren’t in dispute.
I just want to make it clear. I do believe a racist incident happened in this case. And even more so in the LA Fitness case. Treating white and black customers differently (or not yet customers in this case) is not okay.
Don’t know. That’s kind of the point. But based on my “moron theory” that could be part of the conversation as well.
How do you know this? Have we polled everyone there? Have we looked into the history at the store? And her past performance with these types of situations?
MOWC, what is the remedy in law for racial discrimination by a business? Let’s say Fang’s Ice Cream refuses to serve a black person. A black person has video of a Fang’s employee saying, “I will not sell you an ice cream cone because you’re black.” What’s the remedy?
http://abc13.com/what-a-witness-says-happened-during-phila-starbucks-arrests/3342444/
(Lauren was the witness who took the video.)
The remedy for discrimination against a member of a protected class would be a suit by the individual or by the government. However, my point here is whether service was denied. A policy can not be applied in such a way as to affect only a protected class. It’s a complicated area of the law. You would have to look at the pattern of actions by this particular store/employee over a period of time greater than that morning. As far as legal proof, your example “I won’t serve you because you are black” is a lot different from “Leave because you aren’t buying anything.” Perhaps the same effect, which is what has to be shown.
I understood the legal point about whether throwing out a non-payer constitutes “denying service.” I just wanted to know the remedy if we stipulate that service was denied.
The two black guys were waiting for another guy, who would probably have bought coffee. So they were in a group of people some of whom were buying. IANAL, but I suspect that throwing out black non-buying people in groups of people buying coffee, but not white non-buying people in groups of people buying coffee, would count as discrimination.
Consider a similar situation. A group of women go into a store because one of them is shopping for a dress. Can a store have a policy of allowing the woman who is trying on a dress, and the white women accompanying her, to remain, while ejecting black women accompanying their dress-buying friends? I can’t see how such a policy would survive a challenge.
Still, this situation is in the legal weeds. All legal situations are in the weeds. It’s always about the exact facts.
One important point is that it is not a “policy”. It was (and is in your example) of one employee doing something very inappropriate. We have no idea if this employee did this on a regular basis or not. We also have no idea if the third person in the Philadelphia group would have bought coffee or not. He might have walked in with his Dunkin cup.
I’m sorry for picking it apart, but I deal with things like this in the employment context (and sometimes in the customer context) every day in my job, and there are just SO many things to consider. We just won a case at trial involving a customer (a bad guy) who tried to turn a theft arrest into a racial incident, which it wasn’t.
Isn’t it illegal to deny service to a black person for being black, even if it happens only once? Stipulating that the employee stated, “I am refusing to service you because you are black,” isn’t that illegal on the face of it? Even if the business does not have a policy of denying service to black people, isn’t it still illegal to do it?