On the Brady campaign blog I noticed one glaring similarity in their reports and statements. They can’t read and or comprehend words that have been strung together in the form of what we call “sentences”. These “meaningful linguistic units” have apparently slipped the grasp of the writers for the website.
Apparently they do not know how to take “no” as an answer. In fact, I don’t think they know how to take any answer. I went to the “Brady in the News” section, and found no less than 4 references to the Starbuck’s stories. So in my search for a laugh I started reading the posts. They link to news websites from news agencies around the country. After reading some of these news stories, I started to have my laugh…
The Brady Bunch has made the following statement...
“Starbucks hasn't taken a definitive stance on the issue.” – (CBSNews.com)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Starbuck’s made the following statement:
“For Starbucks, the safety of our customers and partners is our paramount concern. We have existing security protocols in place to handle situations related to safety in our stores. We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement regarding this issue”)
Correct me again if I am wrong, but what part of Starbuck’s statement did the Brady Bunch not understand? I seem to get it. They DO have existing security protocols in place to handle security issues. They WILL CONTINUE to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws. Correct me if I am wrong (again), but who owns the company? Starbuck’s or the Brady Campaign? Seems to me like a bunch of little brats did not get the candy they asked for, and are refusing to take mommy’s answer “because I said so”, so they are continuing to push the issue. My advice to the Brady Group… Grow up.
So what do they do? I wandered over to the Seattle Times website and found another story by Melissa Allison that opens with..
“The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is asking people to sign a petition telling Starbucks to keep guns out of its shops, because they say they can't get a straight answer out of the Seattle company about its gun policy.”
Again the story does quote the same reply that Starbuck’s gave the Brady Group. There was however a link to the petition…
This petition is laughable.
“Dear Starbucks, You are currently allowing people to openly carry guns in your stores. I demand that you stand up for the safety of your customers and bar guns in your coffee shops. Guns don't belong in restaurants where families and children gather. Reverse your corporate decision.” - Barady Campaign Website
I have several issues with the petition; let’s break it apart a bit.
“Dear Starbucks,”
I’m ok so far. Good use of letter writing skills. It’s always nice to start with a greeting.“You are currently allowing people to openly carry guns in your stores.”
As per their policy, they are adhering to the law. But they are really not allowing or refusing anything. They are in business with the general public, so they have their front doors unlocked and welcome EVERYONE into their stores. It’s almost as if the petition is stating that Starbuck’s is discriminating against the non-gun carrying customers. I wonder if the Klan has a petition to keep blacks out of Starbuck’s? They are both protected by the constitution, local, state and federal laws, what’s the difference?“I demand that you stand up for the safety of your customers and bar guns in your coffee shops. Guns don't belong in restaurants where families and children gather.”
Oooooo! A demand mixed in with an accusation. Nice, this is how you want to deal with people. First thing that you do is make a demand. Then you accuse, try and convict other Starbuck’s customers for crimes that will not happen. Really shows intelligence on the parts of the Brady Group. But to their point, they can’t read or comprehend.The Seattle Times article is more of an opinion piece than the news. I thought that I would have fun with it. Let’s take the article, and replace one constitutionally protected right with another…
Article and Beginning of Sarcasm:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Black Violence is asking people to sign a petition telling Starbucks to keep blacks out of its shops, because they say they can't get a straight answer out of the Seattle company about its blacks policy. The petition has more than 15,000 signatures.
"Our California activists are responding to the activities of Black activists in the Bay Area, who noticed Black demonstrations at Peet's, California Pizza Kitchen and Starbucks," said Doug Pennington, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign.
Blacks.org describes itself as "a pro-black Internet community focused on the right to openly be black in daily American life." They sometimes meet in public places to exercise their right to carry unconcealed guns.
When the Brady Campaign asked each company for its Blacks policies, Peet's Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen promptly issued notices that blacks are not allowed -- either at all or on display -- in their shops unless you're a police officer.
Starbucks hasn't done that. "So far, Starbucks hasn't said what seems to be an obvious kind of policy, that 'no blacks are allowed in our stores unless you're a police officer,'" Pennington said.
In a written statement, the company said, "For Starbucks, the safety of our customers and partners is our paramount concern. We have existing security protocols in place to handle situations related to safety in our stores. We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement regarding this issue."
Based on that, it's hard to know whether Starbucks allows blacks in shops or not. But if it's going strictly by the law, then in many states including Washington, it does allow blacks.
End of Article and Sarcasm…
Some of you may say that I am being extreme by replacing an item with a race of people. I disagree. It is plainly evident that the extreme pro-gun control group is indeed criminalizing a select group of people who have done no wrong. Not one thing wrong, yet for some reason there are those who think that honest, law-abiding people are somehow criminal for doing nothing but making a choice and exercising a right.
The Bradys just don’t seem to get it. In yet another article I read the following in response to Starbuck’s reply to the Brady Campaign:
“But Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke says this is a cop-out. "Here's the problem with that answer," he wrote on the Huffington Post this week: "Generally speaking -- and certainly in California -- businesses have the right to bar guns on their premises. It is their property and, just as they can prohibit entry by people with bare feet, they can do the same for people with guns.”
Would I just answer that statement with the original one? Starbuck’s has indeed already answered that with the statement:
“We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement”.
I’m not 100% on California law, however if Starbuck’s refuses entry to customers without shoes it is because of Board of Health regulations. Would this not equate to adhering to local laws?
Again I am reminded of a brat child with their fingers in their ears, screaming “I can’t hear you”, until you finally say what that little brat wants to hear. I honor Starbuck’s response, and hope that their continual answer to the Brady Bunch is
“Because I said so…”.Shakes magic 8 ball... forseeing a lot of drive by unrecs... And pissing and moaning about being sarcastic with the article...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
