Starbucks doesn’t want gun owners in its shops. According to the CEO, the dream Starbucks customers is a pro marriage equality environmentalist, and gun owners make those kind of people uncomfortable. Except for the fact that a lot of us who support the Second Amendment also support marriage equality and the environment, so much for stereotyping and profiling.
For the moment, lets ignore the fact that Starbucks has lousy product and its way too expensive. When I lived in San Francisco, we always avoided Starbucks as the McDonalds of coffee, or maybe the ExxonMobil of coffee. But the more obvious point is that there has always been something hypocritical about a drug pusher complaining about tobacco products and the like. Yes, caffeine is a drug, and it can be a dangerous drug, and just as dangerous as nicotine, and Starbucks routinely sells it to children. If Starbucks really wants to push the issue of gun owners, then they will find themselves up against plenty of Boards of Health, ala Ashland Massachusetts, who will raise the caffeine buying age to 21, which should pretty much put Starbucks out of business. Let’s call Starbucks the crack dealer that it is. The McDonalds of crack dealers.
But Starbucks is also heading for a big fat federal lawsuit. The US Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court has reaffirmed in the past six weeks that gun owners who are carrying according to their permits cannot be the subject of discrimination based upon personal bias. For Starbucks to tell gun owners to leave their guns at the door is no different than telling a black customer to leave his skin at the door. Starbucks seems to have forgotten that guns are constitutionally protected, and Starbucks does not have a right on its private property to exclude people acting in conformity with local, statue or federal law simply because of personal bias.
In a country that is increasingly divided, marriage equality states v. non equality states, and so forth, are we about to embark on business enterprises that you chose because of the politics of the owner? I already participate int the boycott of Whole Foods, which is another overpriced and stuffy venue in any event, but how far down the road are we going to go toward fast food chains, supermarkets and the like that are selected not because of the quality of their products but because of the intolerance of their owners? The difference between now and the 1960s is that Jim Crow is a Democratic bigot.