NBC nightly news.

I've never had an issue like this either, but I also have never gone to a busy business, set up shop, tried to use the amenities, refused to make a purchase, and obstinately refused to leave. I have been forced to make my purchase before being allowed access to the rest room, doing the gotta pee dance the whole time. You can't ignore that I'm white....but it had nothing to do with that interaction.

Why buy something if you think your friend is buying? Because you sat down and they asked you to. I've not heard anyone claim that was the case, however, nor that they made that clear to the manager.

Could be they're friendlier at your local Starbucks, since I assume it's not run by Americans. ;-)

I think the 'grief' started when they asked for restroom access but refused to make a purchase. Many locations are strict on that rule to avoid becoming a public restroom that serves coffee. Then they refused to leave or make a purchase, and were likely nasty after being denied restroom access, but even if not they were undeniably defiant of the manager, who has every right to ask non customers to leave.
It might have a race component, but just as easily might not. Jumping to the conclusion that just because they're black it must be racial discrimination is bullshit imo, and leads to insanity like people outraged at racist faucets and soap opera tv court cases.

Can you cite your sources, please? I have not heard this information. What I had heard matches some of what you said.

The information I read on several news sites (CNN, WaPo, and I forget the thrid) all said similar things to what you said, except that the 2 were waiting for a friend to arrive, who happened to arrive just as they were being led out.

They were not customers, yet. Why buy anything before your friend arrives, if he is buying the drinks?

I am white and I have never once been hassled at a Starbucks for showing up and hanging out with my laptop, going to the bathroom, or doing anything for any amount of time.

I don't think we can ignore that they were black, and it sounds like they were getting grief pretty early on in their stay.

*doublepromote a cameo from an old friend of mine, ... P.K. Dwyer! He's the busker with the grey beard playing guitar outside the original Starbucks @2:43!

You just know that sign makers offer a grammar/spellcheck as part of their package... and then deliberately ignore errors when people don't pony up.

I wonder if he "corrects" brand names e.g. Starbucks.

Your video, The Simpsons: Starbucks, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Of course, out of all those we only have Denny's and Starbucks where I live, and I would have to drive a 50 mile round trip for my free coffee and sausage. :-(

Maybe the rest of you were unaware of the facts of this case until you watched some video but I researched this story in the 90's so this video by Adam didn't tell me anything new and Adasm didn't ruin anything for me. I simply disagree with the emotional bias people seem to bring to the case. In my opinion there is one issue. Was McDonald's negligent in serving coffee at 180F. The answer regardless of botched testimony is no. The proof is in the fact that virtually all major vendors of coffee from Starbucks to Dunkin Donuts serve their coffee at that temperature to this day. The difference now is that they are more careful about warnings and labels to let their customers know that, you know, their coffee is hot.

They could have made a case that the cup was too fragile but that wasn't the problem. The woman even made a point of saying that she opened the cup away from herself to avoid spilling but spilled it anyways which to me indicates that she was aware of the risk.

Were the woman's injuries horrible. Yes. Was McDonald's response and testimony incredibly douchy? Yes. Does that in and of itself make them liable. No

And @enoch thanks for the link to the video I watched 3 years ago. You'll notice I didn't upvote that one either. You could have linked me to the documentary "Hot Coffee" that I watched 5 years ago. Here's a new one for you but maybe you've seen it.
*related http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-About-the-Infamous-McDonalds-Hot-Coffee-Incident

Also, I may not be as much of a bleeding heart as you but no, not a sociopath.

@newtboy

not to butt my nose in...
ah who am i kidding..of course i am going to butt my nose in.

you and space are getting caught up on definitions.
neo-conservative which is a fairly new political philosophy from the 1960's by irving kristol,whose name you may recognize as bill-the bloody- kristol (weekly standard) father.

prior to neoconservatism was.../drum roll
neoliberalism.

the fundamental difference is what you alluded to newt,but in my opinion were far too gracious in your definition.
while neoconservatism is far more hawkish,seeing american and "manifest destiny" as her right,and being a global power has a right to use that power to serve her interests,even if that be way of military force.the ultimate goal is to spread american excellence to the world in the form of markets.we sell our awesome and they buy,and we extract what we need for our interests a.k.a business baby.

neoliberalism may be more "dovish" but the goals are the same:political and financial dominance.

and the results are very similar as well.
so while neoliberalism may use economic hitmen,the IMF and the GTO to impose the will of american buisiness,and the neoconservatives may rely on the military heavily..

countries are still stripped of their resources,their labor exploited and a starbucks on every corner.their sovereignty is more a suggestion than an actual respective entity.

both philosophies are abhorrent and destructive and cause incredible suffering....and death.

i am super high right now,so if i misread your guys conflict..please forgive.
if i read it right and helped..
you are welcome!

And perhaps more unexpectedly: “Starbucks is a place where these types frequent and a lot of body fluids are exchanged there. But the thing that I was not aware of is that there has been information that has been released… what Starbucks was doing, is they were taking specimens of male semen, and they were putting it in the blends of their lattes. Now, this is the absolute truth.”

Perhaps it's not the best to ask "Who here has a great job?" while sitting in a Starbucks...

While I agree with almost everything she said, unless he was there in an "official" capacity, I don't think starbucks is an appropriate venue to harass him over it.

But if he's just trying to get an overpriced terrible coffee, then he has a right to do so without people shouting at him.

Most choices government makes aren't win-win.

Now, if they voted on going to Costa Rica, but paying for their current ticket twice, or going to Hoboken NJ, but getting a $200 Starbucks card for everyone on a different flight, THEN they're actually voting realistically.

...and after that, they voted to give themselves $55,000 each, then they'd be actual politicians.

Just found out this is in Toronto, needs a *Canada tag. =)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/starbucks-barista-autism-1.3420741

Huh, never thought of that. So true...and I will add to this. In the past jobs in service have been able to absorb people into it to take up the loss of jobs (Say in agriculture and such.) So when Henry Ford made his assembly line, jobs were created pretty much everywhere. Restaurants are but one great example of this.

But with the techno revolution, the service sector was already pretty full. Now it is saturated. If I see one more new gas station down here in Florida, or another restaurant open, it will be too soon. I remember TWO, TWO Starbucks in the same mall. Such a false economy...

Now add automation and boom...

So you make up out of thin air the most depressing story of what this guy's life might eventually turn out to be, use words of divisiveness (look! he's scrounging off the taxpayer everyone!) and use that to justify pre-emptively killing mentally ill people who fit the definition of "dangerous" by your Dickensian outlook.

You want to talk about people scrounging off the taxpayer then let's talk about corporate welfare and dodgy tax havens, about how starbucks, google and amazon get away with paying no tax when we are taxed on our earnings. You call this ill man a scrounger, when george osbourne's family no less has a dodgy 6 million offshore tax deal to name but one of a million examples.

Or let's talk about this guy's parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters who paid into the social system, earning potentially millions for this country. In return they only ask that their son is cared for with respect and dignity in spite of the nature of his illness, and the social system would still have made a net surplus off their family.

How about we talk about the recovery he made as a counsellor for PTSD sufferers or other mentally ill people? Or how in ten years time he ends up as a lollipop man helping kids cross the street to school. What about all the tax he eventually paid on his subsequent and previous earnings, does that matter?

Your dim, dark prediction and understanding of mental illness AND socialism is fucking archaic. Were you frozen in Victorian Britain and thawed out last week or something? Go back to watching the idiot box, i'm sure the latest episode of benefits street will keep you distracted while cameron and his cronies swindle this country. I don't mean to make this overly political but this is EXACTLY what the politics of divide and rule is all about. The TV programs, the newspapers - with shows and stories about benefits and migrants - they all conspire to convince person A that they should blame person B, meanwhile person Z is laughing their way to the bank. And you lap it up and take it to the extreme of putting PEOPLE to sleep!?

In this country, we all contribute to the social system so that everyone can be looked after. It drives me potty hearing someone complain about taxpayer's money going to ill and unfortunate people when all it would take is one single bad day for that same person to suddenly need all that help and more.