Word to the wise…those frapachinos will stain the shit outa white satin.
My bold, underline, and italics (like that matters with this skin)
Now that you have changed what you are are talking about to an employee, that’s a bit different. Now the employee is following the rules of conduct that starbucks gives. As Starbucks is one of the few companies I’ve never worked for, I don’t know their policies, but I would assume that they are probably against overt political actions by their employees. You would be unlikely to have this situation arise.
OTOH, Starbucks isn’t entirely shy from political activities, and I could see them allowing or even encouraging their employees to voice their political opinions. I don’t think that that would be a great marketing move, but it would be their right as a company.
If you walked into a starbucks and saw an employee wearing a “Starbucks does not support Trump” shirt, approved by starbucks, then your only recourse would be to go elsewhere. As it is, you are complaining that this private company is acting in a way that you don’t like.
And, given that you have said that you don’t even watch or care about football, it is doubly ridiculous for you to criticize. It would be like you never went into a starbucks, but you know that there is a barista somewhere voicing his opinion, and you just can’t have that.
He said, “some person”, not employee. You are correct, big difference. You are incorrect, though, on what he said.
If he said that the klan was stupid and that the klan was racist or whatever, I’d be cool with that. If he told the guy he didn’t have a right to sit there, then he’d be the one against free speech.
And yet you apparently think that the police shooting hundreds of people each year is even less important.
Pick a case.
I’ll tell you why either the police fucked up, or the “victim” did or in most cases how it a bit both.
Not changed.
I’ll cop to saying “somebody”…but then again the discussion was about NFL players (aka employees) being protesting IMO dicks.
So, when I brought up Starbucks, it seems a reasonable inference that I meant the employees as well.
Or did you actually think I meant random people expressing random views and that somehow THAT should hurt the NFL/Starbucks/Whatever business bottom line? :dubious:
Why not? They’re there on their own time, just like you’re there on your own time. As private citizens, they have a right to wear what they wish.
dude…keep up…
My apologies. I thought you meant other patrons. Yeah, if Starbucks enforces a dress code for their employees, they shouldn’t be wearing Trump or Hillary T-shirts while on the job if the employer decrees so.
No, it’s quite clear you do not understand. The First Amendment applies to the government, not the NFL or Starbucks, or their customers.
No problem. Just teasing you a bit 
The other posters…not so much.
No, but they get a hell of a lot better information there than they do on “the social media pages.”
Actual information? Yes.
The mood of the “public” vs what they think the mood of the “public” is. I’d be a bit worried on that one.
You may have thought it was a reasonable inference, but those were not the words you used. It you had said employee, that would be reasonable inference that you meant starbucks employee, if you had said barista, that would be a reasonable reference that you mean a starbucks barista. “Some person”, I have no reason to think that you were referring to a starbucks employee, but rather, just some person. As you don’t attend NFL games or pay any attention to them, I assumed that you were just making a poor analogy based on your poor understanding of the NFL.
Sweet, so trump isn’t part of the government anymore, when did that happen? As trump is telling people what they can and cannot say, and he is a part of the government, how does what he have to say not applicable?
In any case, I was responding to billfish’s desire to not see “Some person” in a starbucks wearing a politically affiliated t-shirt. The only way to prevent some person from wearing such a t-shirt would be to put restrictions on the first amendment.
Now that billfish has clarified, and explained that he misspoke, not meaning “some person”, but rather, “an employee”, then he is still against the first amendment if he want to put into place restrictions on the employer’s right to political speech. If he simply wishes to put pressure on starbucks for allowing such speech, that is a different thing, but that does not relate to his analogy with football, as he says he does not watch or care about football in any way. You cannot boycott that which you do not patronize. So, his only threat against an organization that says things he doesn’t like is to ask the govt to get involved in regulating against speech he does not wish for people to express.
I’ve told you what I meant (and to be honest, IMO if you didn’t get it then IMO it reflects more badly on your intellect than it does on my imperfect language skills).
Do you think you are scoring some points now somehow?
I’m glad for this thread. Mr. Middon and I discussed this topic earlier. Apparently the Chicago Bears stood for the anthem, which he thought was good and I thought was disappointing.
But neither of us get why genuflecting during the national anthem is so disrespectful. After all, when I was a child it was routine to genuflect in church before entering the pew. This was considered to be highly respectful. The same gesture applied to the flag is wrong?
Look – if the players want to be disrespectful, they have lots of options. They could moon the flag. They could talk on their phones during the anthem. They could swill beer while the anthem is being sung. I suspect that a careful look at the crowd in the stadium would show some fans doing the latter two things, and wouldn’t be shocked to see someone do the first.
Players could bring out the Stars and Bars and sing “Dixie” during the anthem. That would be extremely disrespectful, but I’ll bet Donny John wouldn’t tweet about it.
If the first player to kneel during the anthem had been white and was protesting the injunction against the travel ban, would the trump fans be so upset? Oh, no – I’m sure racism has nothing to do with their outrage.
Much as it grieves me to have to agree with D’Anconia, he kinda is right. The first amendment isn’t what applies in a Starbucks, because that’s a businessplace, and the manager can make you leave the store if he doesn’t like your t-shirt. The First Amendment doesn’t apply.
A newspaper editor can reject a story, refuse to print a letter, etc. I can throw you out of my house if you’re a Republican. A guy can invite only Jews to his kids Bar Mitzvah. Your boss can fire you for using a racially-charged word in the workplace. There are lots of limitations on free speech that have nothing to do with the First Amendment.
(D’Anconia makes up for this by being wrong a good 97% of the time.)
Is he sending out Federal Marshalls to arrest football players? No.
He can say pretty much whatever he wants (and he does).
No one’s rights are being violated by tweet.
Intellectually:
I understand that the players have every right to protest police brutality.
Emotionally:
When a bunch of rich jocks disses my flag and my anthem, my knee-jerk reaction is to side with the police.
My conclusion (YMMV):
As a political tactic, it is counter-productive. The people who support the protest already agreed with the protesters. The people who disagreed with the protesters are unlikely to be converted. It is virtue-signaling, not advancing the cause.
But he is not an owner of starbucks. He doesn’t have the right to tell starbucks employees what they can and cannot wear, only starbucks can, but he is asserting that he should have the right to tell starbucks what their employees can and cannot wear, and the only way I can see that to be enforced is through legal processes.
In this analogy, he is defending Trump, who certainly is a govt official, telling the players, the employees of a company to which he does not own, (he wishes) what types of speech they may partake upon.
My point is, is that the only way for him to get his wish to not have people do things that he finds objectionable would be to have limits placed upon the first amendment.
A newspaper editor can reject a story, but if he is told to by either trump or a law that billfish advocated for, then that’s a violation of the 1st. I can throw you out of my house (or fire you for that matter) because you are a republican, but my neighbor cannot tell me I have to do so, nor can he petition city council to have him removed.
There are many limitations to free speech that have nothing to do with the 1st, this is true, but the limitations that billfish and trump want to put in place would.
:dubious: