this is not that hard

It seems as though Starbucks is rapidly learning the meaning behind “there is no such thing as bad publicity”.

You might recall a few weeks back when Starbucks issued an official, corporate statement basically saying, “We do not care what our customers do, so long as they do it within the bounds of whatever laws are applicable.” Freedom-loving folks like me promptly thanked them for their position, while anti-rights advocates around the country promptly wet their pants and engaged in a month-long campaign against the lawful exercise of peaceful rights… er… Starbucks.

Understandably getting annoyed at being the target of an idiotic anti-rights campaign, Starbucks has issued another statement:

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

[...]

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

As I said over at Mike’s place, I am simply flabbergasted at how certain individuals are getting upset with a company actually following the law – in states where open carry is legal, they permit it, and in states where it is illegal, they ban it. How hard is that?

To be certain, the decision to service customers of any type is entirely up to the businesses in question, but, in this particular, case, the Brady’s do not even have a single leg to stand on, especially since Starbucks is playing the role of an NPC at this point:

It hit the papers today and there’s one one logical reaction: Brady’s, leave Starbuck’s alone! Why are you trying to force — one of your fave words when it comes to permitting citizens to exercise a civil right, innit? — force Starbucks to pick a side, when the best-case outcome is that it will tick off half their customers?

Why lean on a chain of coffee joints to sign up on a side? Starbucks doesn’t vote. Most of their stores are small; in states (49 of them, Paul Helmke, are y’skeeered?) with some provision for the carrying of loaded handguns by law-abiding citizens, it makes no sense for a store smaller than most living rooms to tell the guy or gal who is perfectly okay keeping and bearing arms on the sidewalk outside the store that they can’t come in and pay high prices for a decent cuppa Joe; what’s twenty feet closer to the cappunchino machine gonna do?

Why is it that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership, and other anti-rights bigots like them, are so opposed to both private companies acknowledging and allowing the free exercise of individual rights, and private companies following the laws of the states in which they operate? Why is the Brady Campaign irrationally targetting law-abiding citizens and a law-abiding company? Why is the Brady Bunch making such a big deal out of a non-issue? Why are they putting a random company in the hot-seat, when all that company wants to do is sell a product and make money? The Brady Campaign never stood a chance of occupying the high ground in this case…

As I mentioned before, I do not drink coffee, and I am not likely to start any time soon. However, I will see what I can do about supporting Starbucks – overpriced though they may be, they at least carry Tazo Tea. Likewise, I took a few minutes today and punched a few buttons to directly quantify my support of Starbucks as well… if you have the time, hit up the polls yourself.