TexasGal wrote:If I see a valid 30.06 sign at the store, I will obey it and not enter. If a manager verbally tells me he/she does not want any guns in the store, I will leave. Otherwise, I see no problem carrying concealed. Even if Texas ever allowed open carry, I would still go concealed except when in rural areas, camping, etc. Places where most would not be alarmed.
The verbiage of the letter is an earnest plea to please stop making Starbucks any public part of the gun argument--and especially pertaining to visible guns. Some in the open carry crowd just will not stop pushing all of their fellow citizens to become completely accepting of strangers to stand next to them and their children with a visible gun. As a gun enthusiast, I totally understand how gun owners feel, but before I was who I am now, I was for many years a woman who would have thrown a fit over some guy openly carrying a gun near me or my kids. I would have had no idea why or if he was some nut that was a threat or just simply negligent. These days with mass shootings being played up endlessly by the anti's we are simply not going to win this by being insensitive to those who are truly fearful and ignorant of guns. It WILL backfire.
THIS ^^ ..........and by the way, there was a time in my life when I shared her past viewpoint. I have made the switch 100%, but I can GUARANTEE you that I didn't get there by people getting in my face about it. I got there by the patient and considerate efforts of intelligent men of purpose, who understood that I could not be "confronted into" accepting their viewpoint. They had to make their case, and PROVE it. I'm not a stupid person, and I don't react well to people who talk to me like I
am. I want the same things that the OC crowd wants, but I want it to be arrived at patiently and intelligently, because THAT is the method that A) yields the
best results, and B) the
lasting results.
Vol Texan wrote:Note the wording he selects:
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.
To me (and this is my interpretation only, yours may vary), those of the words of a smart businessman who likely supports guns, but doesn't want his store to become a tool used by both sides against each other. His position makes perfect sense. Why alienate half your customer base to please the other half, when you can simply invite all in equally? Remember, he makes money by selling coffee, not by promoting any specific agenda.
My wife does the same, by the way: she's a jeweler, and she owns an independent jewelry store in the Houston Heights area. Her area is so liberal that Sheila Jackson Lee's office is only a block away. The vast majority of her customer base swings far to the left of center, by virtue of her store's location. Any discussion of guns being welcome in her store would cause many of her customers to not just stop coming, but also convince their friends never to come in again. It would be a death knell for her business, so she avoids the topic. But don't make any mistake - she's carrying 100% of the time in there, and welcomes CHL holders to do the same. She evenJust don't force the conversation into the open while others are in the store.
A unique parallel exists here with the gay community. I don't care a person's orientation any more than I care their religion or whether they prefer Peter Pan vs. Jif peanut butter. Do what you want in your own room, and I don't care. In the business world I have hired and promoted both straight vs. gay people, and their orientation did not matter one bit, as long as they were the right person for the job.
But acceptance is not the same as embracing - and I'm not interested in
embracing or
celebrating alternative lifestyle choices. My wife and I have a much more conservative belief structure, and we're encouraging that in our daughter as well. So, if you force my hand on the subject, then you might not like my answer. Just be happy that I accept it, and will not use your personal choices against you in my business decisions.
The same thing happens with this latest generation of 'YouTube' open carry video makers. They're not content with easing people into the idea of being comfortable with guns - they need to make it 'in your face'. This does little to help our cause, and (as demonstrated by Mr. Schultz), can hurt us demonstrably. His letter was quite neutral - he supports the 2A, he refuses to ban, but openly requests that open carry stops in his stores. Antis perceive this as a victory, and many 2A supporters (as witnessed here) perceive this as a loss. Unfortunately, both are right, because perception is reality.
And by the way...Peter Pan is clearly better than Jif.
First of all, you're wrong. Planter's extra crunchy is the best, and I'll fight you for it if I have to.
Secondly, THANK YOU, for so clearly stating the difference between acceptance and embracing. Like you, I personally hold fairly conservative beliefs, but I am not going to hold those over the heads of other people. But accepting that others are different from me does not mean that I will embrace all of their life choices. I guess that makes me a libertarian. I am not yet in the position to hire other people in my business—except as temporary independent contractors—but if I were, like you I would not hold their personal life choices against them
so long as they did the best work for me they could do, and met my standards for their production. I am a fair man, and I recognize that not everybody is going to agree with me no matter how right I believe myself to be in those matters.
That said, I would not likely
knowingly advance someone whose
political activities I knew to be contrary to the best interests of my business,
regardless of how unfair that might be to some. If I had knowledge of someone's personal political choices being destructive to my business, I could not in good conscience promote such a person, no matter how well they performed their duties while at work, because their ultimate interests are destructive of my own..........which is why it is best for employees to not talk about politics at work. I'm not saying that I would forbid employees to talk about politics on their own time....lunch breaks, etc.......I'm just saying that I would incorporate the things they say into my opinion about their intelligence, reliability, and dedication; and that might have a negative impact on whether or not I would consider them for advancement.
As to Starbucks, he is
asking, not
telling people with openly carried guns to not carry them into the store. Let's cast it in a different light....since 2nd Amendment issues are fundamentally a human rights issue..... If aggressively pro gay rights patrons started demonstrating inside the store premises by groping and necking one another in same-sex displays, it might reasonably be expected to offend those Starbucks patrons who are less than accepting of the gay lifestyle. Those patrons might start letter-writing campaigns and organizing protests and boycotts against Starbucks for permitting this behavior in their stores. In response, Howard Schultz might write and open letter to the gay community
asking (not
telling) them to please not make Starbucks the focal point of their demonstrations. In that letter, he might say that Starbucks respects the personal gender attraction choices of its clientele, but it does not want to be the battle ground for the debate.
That is what has happened here, except that it is about guns instead of genitalia.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
