I’m a liberal because I think Starbucks has private property rights

I remember when a fast food chicken sandwich restaurant became, out of nowhere, a hotly contested battle ground in the gay marriage debate. Everything was fine, everything was normal, everybody was eating chicken, until suddenly liberal activist organizations were encouraging gay men have heated make out sessions at their local Chick-fil-A, and Christians were countering with a Bible in one hand and waffle fries in the other. Boycotts, rallies, Appreciation Days, demonstrations, fundraisers — it was war. Personally, I have plenty of opinions on the topic of gay marriage, but on the topic of Chick-fil-A all I ever cared about was their chicken.

Millions of people cried out, “We must win Chick-fil-A to our side!”

And I courageously stood and shouted, “Can I get a number one with a Diet Coke?”

I didn’t think political discourse could get any more absurd than the Gays vs. Chicken War of 2012, but that was before the CEO of Starbucks said the word “gun” and the whole world exploded.

If you missed the “controversy,” it all started when Starbucks announced a few months ago that the guns policy in its stores would follow local laws and ordinances. If you live in a state where open carry is allowed, you can open carry in your local Starbucks. If you don’t, then you can’t. Simple. Sensible. Neutral. Cool, let’s all move on with our lives, right? Nope. Sorry, this is America and we’re bored, so we’re going to turn this thing into a crisis just for the hell of it. Some gun rights activists and gun owners (note, I said “some”) responded by marching into their neighborhood Starbucks toting ARs, AKs, and shotguns. They gathered in large groups, all packing heat as openly and visibly as possible, and took pictures to post on Twitter and Facebook. They wanted to “prove a point,” they claimed. But nobody understood the point they were trying to make, and I’m not sure they did, either.

I received several emails from people proud to show me photos of their “demonstration.” Invariably, it was an image of some guy flashing his holstered firearm in the middle of the store, while a lady in the background looks on with an expression of concern and befuddlement. My response was always the same: the store let you carry that inside, why are you punishing them for it? Yes, perhaps other patrons shouldn’t be worried just because half of the people in the store are armed to the teeth, but they will be worried. And you know it. So your act of “appreciation” is to hurt the business you claim to appreciate by abusing the thing you appreciate them for? I’m confused. And befuddled. Actually, I guess I can relate to that woman in the photo.

This is like if I permit you to wear shoes in my house, so you, rejoicing my leniency, celebrate by jumping into a mud puddle, stomping on my carpet and putting your feet up on my coffee table. Congratulations, I’ve just amended my shoe policy, and it’s all your fault.

I love gun rights, I’m a humongous Second Amendment advocate, and I have consistently and passionately used whatever little voice I have to advocate for the rights of gun owners, but this — this is not activism. This is a disservice to the gun rights movement. Responsible gun owners don’t parade around coffee shops with their shotguns just so they can post a photo of it on social media. Responsible gun owners aren’t impressed with themselves; they see the gun as a tool — not a toy, not a fashion accessory, not a “point,” not an excuse to cause a scene — and they carry that tool with a sense of maturity and discipline. I live in Kentucky. People open carry here all of the time. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I would fight tooth and nail against any politician who would try to abridge that right. But carting a bunch of firearms into a Starbucks just to prove you can? Come on. There are real battles to be fought, but they don’t involve mocha lattes and overpriced frappucinos.

Starbucks had a reasonable and neutral gun policy, but a select group of attention seekers wanted to force the company to choose a side. Starbucks, for some reason, has to be “pro-” or “anti-.” So a few days ago the CEO issued a statement ASKING his customers to refrain from bringing guns into his stores. He said people with guns will not be kicked out, and they will not be denied service, but he would like everyone to voluntarily respect the rule. Of course this announcement of a voluntary business policy was greeted with accusations of “discrimination,” and cries of “rights” being violated.

I don’t even like Starbucks; I know auto parts shops that have better complimentary cups of Joe. I’m also aware that the corporation has some left-leaning tendencies and, stereotypically, attracts a more liberal clientele. But I’m not going to act like they’ve done something wrong here just because I’m “supposed” to be on the other “side.” There doesn’t need to be a side. The gun rights fight doesn’t belong in a Starbucks due to the fact that, frankly,YOU DON’T HAVE GUN RIGHTS IN A STARBUCKS. Do you know why? Because it’s a private establishment and they can make whatever rules they like. They decided that it doesn’t particularly help their business to have customers in their stores, drinking coffee with a rifle propped up against the table, so they changed their rules accordingly. They have the right to do that, you have the right to go elsewhere. You don’t have the right to make your own rules for their private business.

Indeed, the only “rights” at stake here are the rights of private business and private property. I wish more than a few people in this country actually gave a damn about those types of rights. They aren’t as sexy or as flashy, but they are necessary. In fact, none of your other rights mean anything if you don’t possess the basic entitlement to govern your own businesses and set the rules on your own property. I’ve seen folks on the internet declare their intention to open carry inside a Starbucks regardless of the rules. Again, these are not activists. The gun rights movement should not embrace them. People who believe in liberty, believe in liberty it in all of its forms. They wouldn’t set their Second Amendment rights against another’s private property rights. They understand that our rights are in harmony, not in competition. In other words, the issue over at Starbucks isn’t gun rights vs. property rights, it’s just anti-property rights vs. pro-property rights. Gun rights have nothing to do with the situation.

Here’s how this works. A business owner comes to the marketplace and says: “Hey everyone. I’ve got this business I started. We make coffee, it tastes like you’re licking the pavement on a hot day, it’s fantastic. Anyway, here are the prices, and here are the rules, and here are our hours of operation, and if this all seems attractive to you, please come on in and let’s do business. Otherwise, you’re free to get your black tar coffee elsewhere.”

Now, we don’t get to counter with our own rules, and our own prices, and our own hours of operation. We don’t get to say, “you close at 9 but I feel like coming at 10,” anymore than we can say, “you don’t want guns in your store but I’m bringing one anyway.” We can go with their program, or we can go somewhere else. That’s it. End of discussion. We can impact the prices and the rules within the context of the free marketplace, but we don’t get to claim joint ownership of the enterprise and then complain that our rights are violated because we disagree with how they choose to do business. People who still choose to bring their weapons into Starbucks are choosing to undermine private property rights. They’re just as bad as the gun grabbers in DC, and perhaps even more hypocritical.

As a secondary concern, I’m really getting quite sick of this new American pastime where we troll business owners and force them to “have a position” on the divisive issues of the day, then promptly punish them no matter what they say. Some businesses choose to wade into ideological waters, but many are pushed into it. It’s ridiculous. Why can’t coffee and chicken be apolitical? Why does everything have to be a controversy?

Am I only supposed to do business with people who share my ideology?

What’s next? Are we going to demand that the guy who owns Radio Shack publicly endorse a side in the euthanasia debate? Then, if he’s against it, we can stick it to him by staging assisted suicides in the store, right next to the cell phone chargers. Hey, next time you stop to buy a drink from a little kid’s lemonade stand, insist that the child explain his views on campaign finance reform. Then, if he says the wrong thing, dump the lemonade on his head and stage demonstrations outside of his mom’s house until they’re forced to move out of the neighborhood.

This “controversy” is another example of the media presenting a distraction to the public, telling them “the sides” and sitting back while millions of Americans fall in line and react exactly how they were told they should. Of course plenty of “conservative” talk radio hosts jumped on this Starbucks Outrage Bandwagon because it’s easy and it will get the phones ringing. I tried to present a more nuanced and objective perspective and now I’ve got listeners emailing accusing me of being a “liberal” and a “traitor.”

Welcome to America. Now get in your preassigned box and toe the line. Don’t worry about thinking for yourself, we’ll do that for you.

**UPDATE: Many people have commented or emailed to challenge the consistency of my private property stance. They asked whether I’ve spoken out about the Christian business owners who have been persecuted and, in some cases, actually prosecuted for holding a Biblical view of marriage and sexuality. For the record, I’ve been all over this issue. I wrote about it recently, you can find it here: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/08/16/youre-an-inbred-white-trash-hick-and-i-say-that-because-i-value-tolerance/

We have an Orwellian “Fairness Ordinance” here in Lexington, KY, that has led to a Christian businessman being charged with a “human rights” violation for declining to produce t-shirts advertising a gay rights parade. I’ve been one of the loudest voices against this particular unconstitutional atrocity, and many like it. You may disagree with me (a lot of people do) but I’m not inconsistent. Thanks for reading.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

258 Responses to I’m a liberal because I think Starbucks has private property rights

  1. jshippee says:

    You are right about the media. The media does tell a large part of our society what to think and when to think it.

  2. J. Morris says:

    Thank you. I choose not to drink Starbucks, because I’m too cheap to pay that much for something I can get for a buck at McDonald’s. I don’t care what their gun policy is, since I’d go through the drive-thru, anyway.

    I think this whole thing is just a symptom of how divided along party lines our country has become. I tend to be conservative. I hate abortion, higher taxes, and other people telling me how to live my life. But I’m not going to choose where I buy my coffee based on anything other than quality and price.

  3. Cylar says:

    The gun rights fight doesn’t belong in a Starbucks due to the fact that, frankly,YOU DON’T HAVE GUN RIGHTS IN A STARBUCKS. Do you know why? Because it’s a private establishment and they can make whatever rules they like. They have the right to do that, you have the right to go elsewhere. You don’t have the right to make your own rules for their private business.

    Uh….no. Sorry Matt, but the Second Amendment applies everywhere or it applies nowhere. No one has the right to infringe upon it – not Congress, not local governments, not private business owners. We don’t “respect” the right of private business owners to refuse to do business with members of so-called “protected classes,” and I’m afraid that now includes gun owners. It is absolute and irrevocable. The court system still needs to work out all of the places where it is in direct conflict with state and local laws, but business policies and arbitrary rules on private property DO NOT carry force of law. All they can do is ask you to leave if they wish, and then legally you must comply.

    Sorry, but my right to own and carry a firearm does NOT end at the door to your establishment, any more than you could tell me I have no right to breathe your oxygen when I’m inside the premises.

    THAT SAID…if I’m being disruptive or if you have decided you don’t want to do business with me for some arbirtrary reason, that’s another thing. But you DON’T have the right to strip me of my firearm just because I’m on your property. It doesn’t work that way. The First Amendment only prohibits certain acts of Congress, but the Second contains no such limitations. It applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time.

    You started off this article by indicating that Starbucks would respect the local laws of the communities in which its stores are located – their gun policies would be exactly the same as they would anywhere else in that city, state, or county. That was reasonable. Starbucks should have stuck with that.

    • Brianna says:

      Actually, it does work that way. It’s the people who don’t respect the rights of businesses not to do business with “protected classes” that are wrong, not the people who don’t want guns on their property. And yes, I am a gun rights supporter. Personally I think putting a “gun-free zone” sign on a door is idiotic, but it’s still their choice.

      • Mark says:

        Brianna is correct. The bill of rights is not about restricting private businesses; the bill of rights is about restricting government.

      • Anton Fair says:

        Cylar, I understand the point you are trying to make. Private businesses are forced to comply with ADA requirements and the EEOC,etc., so it isn’t exactly the case that private business owners have total freedom in creating their rules and policies. The Federal Goverment has shown that it does not “respect” the rights of private business owners above certain individual rights and civil liberties. And recent actions by the federal government have several millions worried about the future of their individual rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
        However, I agree with Matt, Brianna, and Mark…This discussion is not about Starbucks or any other “business” trying to limit anyone’s right to bear arms. It is about Starbucks’ right to do business without being hijacked for a political cause wholly unrelated to its daily operations. Starbucks (and, I presume, most other businesses) would ask that its customers comply with local laws that relate to guns–open carry, conceal/carry, etc. If the local ordinances do not support the Second Amendment rights of citizens– protest the local ordinance.
        As I understand the “controversy”, Starbucks has only amended its policy in light of some irresponsible gun owners who drew negative attention by their actions– the “disruptive” behavior you point to in your own comment.

    • Tom says:

      No Cylar. We are talking about rights in this case, not laws. It is quite common for laws to violate the rights of individuals, but that does not mean they do not have those rights. You rights end where the next person’s (Or business) begin and in this case they end when you enter the Starbucks. Because Starbucks is a private business they get to choose the terms of your visit.

      You seem to have the mistaken impression the bill of rights grants them, it doesn’t.

      • The only thing Starbucks can force you to do on their property is to leave it. They actually do not have a right to strip me of my guns or any such thing, no matter where you are standing. There is absolutely nothing that they can make me do — their private property is not some circus where they have the power to make anybody who stands on it dance like a monkey. Their property is theirs, my body, mind and possessions are not; I will do with those as I see fit and take any command they give me as a suggestion to be viewed in the light of decency and reason.

        And what I see fit to do with my mind, body and possessions is to do whatever God wants me to do, and it seems like that would be to respect their wishes. So I won’t go into Starbucks. I won’t disarm at their command. If they want to be at the mercy of killers and have nobody who can help, that’s on them.

    • Bill says:

      I don’t even need to read on through the comments. I see Matt’s point will be misconstrued all over the place. It seemed to me that he was stressing from the beginning of the post that there was even an issue at Starbucks until some attention grabbing fools made an issue. The owner was forced to exercise his property rights when he probably hadn’t even thought of it. Then the same fools complain about that. Give me a break. I’d say I’m surprised how some people act but I’m use to it in 2013.

    • Mike says:

      As someone else stated below, this is incorrect. The 2nd Amendment (as well as the rest of the BoR) only applies to the Federal Government. It’s very apparent by reading the preamble to the BoR who it applies to.

      • pappad says:

        Except that the USSC later ruled that the restrictions placed on Congress (the federal government) also apply to the States. Otherwise, how can public SCHOOLS be subjected to the phony “separation of church and state” decisions of the courts.

      • Me says:

        It applies to all governments, I think.

  4. Let’s face it – most of Starbucks’ customers are flaming left-wing whack-jobs. It only makes business sense to kick out the gun nuts.

    • Lisa says:

      I am a Starbucks customer, and I am a conservative non-whack-job. I also teach gun safety (read: non-“gun-nut”) so, take a walk on the tamer side of life and stop pigeon-holing people by what type of caffeine they like to drink.

      • Mary says:

        Also a Starbucks customer… and not a ‘flaming left-wing whack job,’ as you call it. I don’t choose my grocery or coffee place along so-called ‘party lines’ either.

  5. Heck, these days people choose their grocery store or coffee shop on party lines.

  6. Amanda says:

    I quit going there a long time ago as they donate to Planned Parenthood, but that’s just me. It is what it is.

  7. MrTom says:

    I don’t think you’re a liberal. You sound more like a libertarian who just hasn’t realized it yet.

  8. linkinns says:

    Great article, this line say everything “the guns policy in its stores would follow local laws and ordinances”.
    And this are the wise words “Responsible gun owners aren’t impressed with themselves; they see the gun as a tool — not a toy, not a fashion accessory, not a “point,” not an excuse to cause a scene — and they carry that tool with a sense of maturity and discipline.”.

  9. Great blog Matt, BUT you left out one minor detail. Are you (or we) convinced that 100% of those that were involved in bringing their firearms into a Starbucks and displaying on social media were in fact misguided “Right-Wing Conservatives”? Isn’t it possible that this is something even a “Left-Wing Liberal” would conspire to participate in just to paint us “normals” in a negative light to the mass media?

  10. Pat says:

    What about smoking? If I choose to invest $100K and build a restaurant with my money – somehow it becomes ‘public’ property and I am not able to make the business decision and take the risk with allowing smoking.

  11. Sue Shaw says:

    I love this. I have never been exposed to your comments before, but the first one I read ( that would be this one), is well written from a common sense perspective, some thing that should be considered in th ” endangered species” category. Great assessment you gave on this issue, and spot on in my opinion.

  12. Flint says:

    You pretty much just summed up why I can’t stand rush limbaugh. Hell, I agree with the guy quite often but he’s a shit stirring hypocritical whiny ass so I don’t have time for him.

  13. Lisa says:


    Here is the bottom line on CONCEALED CARRY. In order carry CONCEALED, in MA state, the firearm MUST BE CONCEALED in ALL WAYS. It cannot be “flashed”, “shown”, “marched”, or “toted”. As for open carry states, people have the right to carry openly. HOWEVER, they cannot ASSAULT another human being with threat of violence or duress with the weapon. And that is what each of these individuals did. By the mere act of utilizing tool of gun as force to change the policy that Starbucks had set by intimidation and duress placed upon employee and customer alike these individuals committed the crime of ASSAULT with a deadly weapon.

    Whether the gun was loaded or not, does not play into it.

    Whether the intent was there or not, does not play into it.

    And quite frankly, the fact that Starbucks ONLY changed their policy and didn’t call the police and have these people arrested is beyond me. There is a difference between someone carrying a gun CONCEALED, for his on protection or the protection of others, and what these individuals did. There is a difference between someone coming in off a deer hunt and needing a cup of coffee and what these people did. Coming off a hunt, a hunter would leave their shotgun in the car, in a locked container or even on the rack. This isn’t the 1870’s, and Starbucks isn’t the local saloon in Tombstone, AZ.

    Why everyone MUST choose a black and white side is beyond me. I like shades of gray. I enjoy the tones of cooperative measures. I don’t adhere to ONE political view, but utilize my own God-given mind to read both sides of an issue (hell, propaganda and all) THEN make my own decisions. The middle ground allows me to see both sides equally. And if someone else doesn’t like that, well, GOOD, that is what makes this country beautifully unique. They don’t have to like it, and I don’t have to listen to them NOT like it.

    I am new to your Blog, and so far think you have an insight that is very refreshing, and a way of writing that brings back memories of my grandfather (that is a good thing).

    • ROTU says:

      Lisa, I am puzzled. You express a totally black and white view and then say: “I like shades of gray. I enjoy the tones of cooperative measures.” followed by “The middle ground allows me to see both sides equally.” Uh, no, I don’t think so! But that’s OK, because that would not be a very bright idea anyway. For instance, can you see both sides of the argument of torturers vs. the tortured? If so, please let us know how you’d find that middle ground.

      Don’t get me wrong. I am conservative and an active participant in the defense and practice of the Second Amendment, and I don’t think those guys should have gone into Starbucks like that. It didn’t make sense. But then again, it was kind of silly for Starbucks to announce that they were going to follow the law. No kidding! Is that something new? I think I’m going to post on my Facebook page: “From this point forward, I’m going to drive on the side of the road proscribed by the laws of the country in which I am driving”. Duh!

      • RS17 says:

        Actually Starbucks initially took the stance that local laws would be followed as a rebuke to anti-gun organizations that wanted them to ban guns in their stores. It is a shame that couldn’t be enough and that some attention-seeking yahoos decided to make them regret that decision.

      • Bill says:

        @ rs17, Glad to see you got the main point of the post. Many didn’t.

    • Karen says:

      Lisa- You are positing that the individuals who have posed for pictures with their guns in Starbucks are “assulting” others and placing them “under duress” just by the mere presence of said fire arm. While I do not personally find their actions mature or necessary, I also do not think that a person posing and taking pictures with a fire arm – regarless of location – constitutes assult of duress. In fact, I do not remember seeing any photos in which the gun-whelders were brandishing them towards other patrons in a threatening manner, so if someone felt threatened by a few goofballs posing with their guns, doesn’t that say more about the prejudices of the ones who felt afraid, than the ones posing with their guns? After all – just because some guy happens to be large and black does not mean that he is a threat, but there are still people out there who will find him threatening, even if he is not threatening them. That is their own fear and prejudice – not assult or duress. I obviously do not find large black men threatening nor fire arms threatening, unless they are doing something or being utilized in a specifically threatening manner. Please feel free to pose with what ever you want to pose with in my vicinity, as long as you don’t get up in my face and try to harm or abuse me in some way. way

      • Lisa says:

        Uh, no, I wrote “assaulting” and yes, it is an assault, (ask the customer who walked in just prior to the first “goofball” with the AK, AR, or Shotgun how he/she felt). I can bet dollars to Dunkin’ Donuts that person thought he/she was looking at their last day on Earth, not a photo op. (The perception of the Customers in a coffee house confronted with several armed people is tantamount to reasonable fear of imminent harm.)

        Karen, your reference to race is an obvious attempt to push buttons. I have no issues with people of color. I look in the mirror daily, and haven’t run away from myself yet. But if you think this is about race, you need to see someone quickly because you have some deep set issues that need to be addressed.

        • Karen says:

          Lisa- You wrote “Karen, your reference to race is an obvious attempt to push buttons. I have no issues with people of color. I look in the mirror daily, and haven’t run away from myself yet. But if you think this is about race, you need to see someone quickly because you have some deep set issues that need to be addressed.” Let me correct you there – I was not trying to turn the issue to race, but rather to point out that the fear of someone just having a weapon in your presence is your own prejudice. And just because you are uncomfortable with something does not constitute assult. That was my point – I merely used a large black man as a more recognizable prejudice that unfortunately is still out there. My point it that being large and black is not threatening in and of itself, nor is being a gun. A gun does not threaten anyone – it is the person with the gun who poses the threat, and if that gun-whelding person is taking pictures with their gun and not pointing it at people and threatening to shoot – you are feaful only because of your own issues. Hope you understand my point this time.

        • pappad says:

          Lisa – Wake up. Seeing someone (or a lot of someones) holding a firearm is NOT an “assault’ just because the viewer “feels threatened” by the presence of someone with a gun. That’s simply stupid.

    • pappad says:

      Lisa. Wake up and have a cup of cappochino or something. These people merely carried their weapons openly into a coffee shop, took a few pictures, drank a cuppa and left. They didn’t “threaten” anyone so therefore did NOT “assault” anyone…let alone with a “deadly weapon.” You sound like some sort of anti-gun idiot.

  14. Lisa says:


    That is the law in MA, not my personal point of view.. Feel free to call and ask. This one isn’t mine to argue about. I didn’t make the law, I just passed it on for informational purposes.

    As for your “torturer vs tortured” scenario. Good golly? Do you subscribe to only one school of thought for every scenario in your life, no matter what is handed you? Are YOU that one dimensional? I can’t imagine that! You are a sentient human being, are you not? So, no, please don’t subscribe me to being one dimensional either. Just because I POLITICALLY choose to look at both sides of issues prior to making decisions (and I clearly wrote POLITICAL VIEW) doesn’t mean I adhere to the middle ground in any and all decisions in my life. Good grief! Read the context AND the text.

    By the way, GREAT analogy likening the Starbucks scenes to driving in other countries.

  15. Lisa says:

    Well, Rotu, technically, MA isn’t a traditional open carry state. You see, each of our local authorities has the Commonwealth’s nod to allow it’s own “rules” to be applied, this can change from Police Chief to Police Chief even within the same town. This type of thing could lead to revocation of your license to carry (BTW you are correct about the Class A, being the “carry” permit) if you venture from one town to another. In all instances in MA the Class A is called the “Concealed Carry” permit.

    But if you don’t believe me, and since I asked the local police department firearms instructor for the information I typed earlier, I’d say give it a go and see how far you get. But before you do, make sure that you are properly licensed, and you are prepared to lose that license or spend an extra $125 or more taking another Basic Firearms Safety Course to get your Class A back from the nice Police Officer who took it away and may give you a second chance to get your license back.

    • ROTU says:

      Hey, I believe you! Everything I read indicates that while you can legally open carry with a Class A permit, it seems to depend on the whim of a given police chief. It’s like if you are on good terms with the guy or have connections, but if not you can be in for a big hassle. I wonder in this case if the people involved knew the chief. Interesting, eh? So much hassle just to exercise your constitutional rights! Here in Illinois, we finally passed a conceal carry law (we were the last state to do so).

  16. susie962013 says:

    You, Mr. Walsh, are fast becoming one of my favorite bloggers. I’m so glad to see someone taking a rational approach to this issue. I’ve largely ignored the whole Starbucks debate, mainly because I don’t care. I don’t do coffee, and if I did, I’d make it from home. But now, I see that it was more (and less) important than I originally thought. I completely agree that gun advocates should pick a better way advocating than showing off their guns in a Starbucks, of all places. Their are better ways of doing it that don’t involve us looking like trigger-happy rednecks with a disregard for property rights.

  17. Dave says:

    The CEO of Starbucks has been sticking his nose into politics for a long time. His “leadership” begets turning his stores into political battlegrounds. Contrast this to the CEO of the chicken company, who while giving an interview with some obscure publication said he was pro-family, or some such statement, probably a half an hour into the interview.. All hell broke loose on the conservative CEO when he was pretty much minding his own business. All hell also broke loose on the progressive CEO because he stirred up the pot and then complained when his stores became activist nirvana. Love Starbucks, but that CEO needs to be fired.

    I enjoy your writing. You’re great at it! Please keep it up..

    • pappad says:

      Pretty much the case, Dave. Except that I don’t patronize Starbucks for ANY reason. Their CEO IS a raging liberal (what else can you expect from someplace like Seattle!) and I wouldn’t give them a dime of my money if my life depended on it and they sold the best coffee on the planet (they don’t!)

  18. ROTU says:

    Matt, the post by pamungkas023 on 10/2 at 9:16pm is spam that directs you to other websites.

  19. Brinna says:

    I’ll have my chicken with a side of I-couldn’t-care-less-about-the-political-stance-or-controversial-views-of-the-person-who-supplied-or-cooked-this-sandwich-now-please-shut-up-and-let-me-eat-my-over-priced-chicken.jpg.

    • ROTU says:

      Right on, Brinna! I myself had dinner at the home of a very liberal acquaintance. I also admit to trying a dish at a church potluck prepared by someone who is an ultra-leftist.

  20. Tim says:

    Businesses are not private property. Private property is a home. A business is a place of public accommodation which is a legally distinct classification. They still have the right to ban or allow guns on their property, but they could not, for example, ban a religious or ethnic group.

    • pappad says:

      …and none do, as far as I know, and those who USED to, have long-ago changed their policies or gone out of business altogether. BTW, a business IS “private property.” It’s owned by an individual (or corporation) not the government, which claims ownership of all “public property.”

Comments are closed.