Black man blocked from entering NJ gym where hes a paid member and even the cops are confused

[BumRushDaShow]

317. Yes we can agree to disagree but I will still comment

There is real racism out there. I don't see it here. As I've said, I have been kicked out of a business. If I'd been black or Muslim, people would've said it's because of my race, despite the fact that I did something in my behavior that resulted in the action.

If "behavior" is a criteria, there was absolutely nothing that these 2 young men did that arose to anything beyond courteous "behavior" because -

1.) When told they had to "buy something" to use the bathroom, rather than argue and make a scene, they walked away and sat down quietly
2.) When asked if they planned to buy something, they told the employee that they were "waiting for a friend", which may have meant - yes, they might buy something once the friend arrives or no, not at this time because their friend invited them to meet and would be treating, or no, not at this time, but maybe later. They had no obligation to play 20 questions because that degree of scrutiny has now arisen to the level "disparate treatment" if other patrons were not subjected to similar and several actually said they weren't. They did not argue or cuss out or act rudely to the employee when she had asked this and continued to sit quietly and converse with each other just like everyone else in the store.

And them BAM! Cops called, which shocked them and everyone ELSE in the store except the idjit who called them.

My brother has been kicked out several times. If he'd been black, going by the rules being applied here to determine whether it's racism, you'd say his being kicked out was racist, if he had been black.

And you explained WHY. He had a penchant for being rude and arguing. THAT is a "behavior" problem, not a "waiting quietly for a friend" problem.

You have to start with: The customer was doing nothing wrong, like refusing to buy something for hte privilege of sitting there.

Incorrect. Starbucks is LICENSED by the state of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia to operate and maintain a business here. THEY are subject to ALL (not the cherry-picked) rules and regulations, not only at the state and federal levels, but also of the City. This Starbucks location violated a city ordinance by the behavior of the employee. I have posted what that ordinance is and who it applies to.

In a case like that, there's more of a case for racism. But when you start with the premise that they didn't do something normal

You have suddenly defined "normal" that is not only outside of the scope of the Starbucks business model, but outside of what the other patrons in the store were doing. Which was identical to what these 2 men were doing.

like buy something for the privilege of sitting there for however long, then things get murky, and it's not ipso facto racism, just because the customers are a minority or female or transgender or whatever.

There is no "ispso facto" anything. There WAS disparate treatment of these black patrons vs the white patrons, who were engaging in the identical behavior as the black ones. And so based on your continued assertions, the white patrons who freely admitted that they "didn't buy anything" as a condition to sit and wait and read or chat OR to use the bathroom, then ALL of them should have been immediately arrested for "defiant trespass".

Doing that (arresting both black and white patrons who did not "buy anything" ) would have removed any "racial" component from this situation, because you would have "equal treatment".

Most businesses require you buy something, if you're going to sit there for any length of time. Makes sense, since they are in the business of making a profit, and you would be taking up a space that a paying customer would take.

Please point me to where this or other chain or private lounges or cafes explicitly state this as their policy if not via a sign at the entrance or hung on a wall somewhere in the facility. Those that want to guarantee some "compensation" for the use of their establishment, will charge an upfront entrance fee or cover charge, and this was not an explicit policy as promoted by Starbucks. It's something they HOPE will help to increase the bottom line - i.e., by making it welcoming there and building up a cadre of "regulars" (who would bring their friends), and the chances are excellent that they will have people buy MULTIPLE cups of coffee or pastries by doing this vs buying 1 cup and leave. They could go to Wawa or 711 or Dunkin Donuts to buy 1 cup and leave, but then they will not have the "casual lounge/community" experience.

But now, this employee and the one at a Los Angeles Starbucks location, have tarnished the brand. And remarkably, some DUers cheer these managerial miscreants on for having some superior "right" that goes beyond local, state, and federal law, and they continue to support the thug cops who completely botched the response, from the initial call receipt all the way to the false arrest and false imprisonment when no one (whether Starbucks or the D.A.) signed off on the complaint to press charges because the cops manufactured a charge on the spot out of spite. And so their "spite job" just set any type of "community trust" with this squad, back to the days of Frank Rizzo, will be costing Starbucks tens of millions for training, and may cost the city who knows how much for the settlement of any lawsuit that might happen for the violation of civil rights by their police force - money that instead could have gone to building community playgrounds or enhancing the libraries. And it is especially bad because the city has been under a consent decree for this very issue of cops out of control.

Just like my behavior caused what a business perceived as a "problem," so they kicked me out. And my brother also had said or done something that resulted in his being kicked out several times. Being kicked out is not unusual for any race or gender (altho it probably doesn't happen often to seniors, since seniors go by the r.ules more than younger people, I think)

Because you apparently were disruptive. These gentlemen were not.