Actual information is coming out now.

They were not customers.
They were asked politely to make a purchase or leave.
They refused to leave and tried to use the customers only rest room after being told they could not without making a purchase, then sat down in defiance of the manager, taking a table in the busy business and disturbing the staff.

This had nothing to do with race and everything to do with false entitlement and eventually trespassing. It's a private business, not a public lounge. Don't leave when asked, get free bracelets.

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.

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.

I guess even the "ask to use the restroom" is confusing to me, since all the Starbucks I have been in, the things are at the back of the store and you just walk in. Sometimes that is my first stop before I order a coffee. They are usually pretty busy, so I have problems how any staff member could know whether or not I ordered something now, or an hour ago. This is where it starts getting weird for me.

You have to admit the optics on this one is pretty bad for that store. I don't for a second believe that this is anything else that something that happened at that particular store and not Starbucks policy.

Ok, it seems they did use the restroom and were noticed and approached, not that they asked to use it and were denied, I misunderstood the tv report. From their online report....

"The employees told police the men came into the store, sat down and then used the bathroom, according to Ross.
"Starbucks said that according to their company policy, they do not allow non-paying...people of the public to come in and use the restroom," Ross said. "So they then asked these two males to leave. These two males refused to leave and the police were called."

"We would love to meet those two men and personally apologize," Camille Hymes, the Starbucks regional manager, told NBC10. "We take full responsibility."
We take full responsibility and....we put [the manager] in a position that did not allow her to be set up for success or those two men," Hymes said
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Protesters-Gather-Outside-Philadelphia-Starbucks-After-Two-Black-Men-Were-Arrested-There-479809353.html

So it seems this is corporate policy, or at least a regional policy, that may just not be enforced in most places, at least that's how I read that.
Full disclosure, I don't think I've ever been to a Starbucks.

Edit: now I've seen an interview with a customer who said you do have to ask for the restroom code at this location, so the original report is looking more correct.

The Root has a pretty good article on implicit bias. There is a real problem here and the most damning thing is this quote from a woman who visits that Starbucks every day.

"She said a Starbucks employee told the gentlemen that if they didn’t purchase anything, they would have to leave, but DePino said that there were people in the store who said they hadn’t purchased anything for hours and had no issue."

https://www.theroot.com/starbucks-witness-implicit-bias-exists-and-white-peopl-1825274101

That article seemed pretty severely biased itself, for example.....
"Still, the employee called the police, because the threat of two black men sitting in the store without purchasing coffee proved too much for her. The employee, of course, was white."
That is not a dispassionate or fair way to describe what happened, and is ascribing motives based on what? Mind reading?

Were there people in the store who hadn't purchased anything at all that had no issues? If so, that's decent evidence of bias imo.
Otherwise that's comparing apples to oranges.

Moving this video to C-note's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Unsurprisingly, today I saw a new paper warning sign taped to the door of a local restaurant saying in part that only customers may loiter on the premises all others will be prosecuted for trespassing, restrooms require prior purchase before use, and you will be asked to leave 30 minutes after you finish your purchases.

Thanks guys.

I agree until your last paragraph. They were waiting for their friend(s) and they were early.

I personally don't like Starbucks. I do have to meet my boss there yearly ( yearly reviews) and often sit waiting 30 -- 40 minutes till my turn. I do not buy anything, never had. The place is mostly full but I am never harassed.

The store clerk was wrong. And the interaction between the police and the men could have been wrong. I do not know how the interaction went down. If they said their piece and disrespectful to the police then then sure escort them out.. But I don't think they were. Cops should have mediated between the store and the men.

If that was the policy, I could agree, but the corporate representative has said publicly that in that region it's their written policy that non customers can't use the rest room or loiter inside, and they set up the manager, unintentionally, to fail with their policies. It's horrific to me that, for following written policy, the manager is now fired.

Crazy that you, of all people, are arguing the manager in a privately owned business doesn't have the right to eject even customers, much less non customers. How can that work? Any place open to the public is now publicly owned? No business may prosecute anyone for trespassing? Even non customers? Or is it just franchise coffee shops? I've seen many a white punk asked to leave Denny's at 2am for no purchase, or for nursing their coffee for hours....I've been one.

The cops have said they asked the men at least 7 times to leave peacefully over a prolonged, disruptive time period, and they continuously refused. During that time, backup and a supervisor were called and had time to show up while the men remained seated, ignoring the police requests/commands.

How hard would it have been to just buy their own coffee instead of causing all this over obstinate refusal to respect the manager's requests because they're waiting for someone? How often would you expect that excuse, if accepted, to end with hours of free WiFi and restroom use but no sales? Seems to me they caused all this themselves, and had dozens of easy opportunities to avoid even being asked to leave, much less arrest, just by being a customer in the store they set up shop in.

Edit: and I shouldn't have said it had nothing to do with race, there's likely a racial component....it's not only or definitively about race.

All that said...please go ahead and boycott Starbucks, if not for this then because they're out of control and a near monopoly.

Starbucks tells employees to let anyone use the restroom after the arrests of 2 black men who tried to use one without buying anything

http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-bathroom-anyone-can-use-2018-5/?r=AU&IR=T