Posted on 07/27/2015 5:02:25 PM PDT by Kaslin
A Florida man banned from Starbucks for life because he called out customers who were breaking the law says he'd do it again to raise awareness for people with disabilities.
Rob Rowen says he received a letter from the manager at a Tampa location after he was accused of publicly shaming people for illegally using the handicapped parking spaces and confronting them inside the coffee shop with cell phone images he took of the violations. Rowen’s son-in-law has muscular dystrophy and uses a power wheelchair, he said.
“I saw someone park and it was obvious they weren’t handicapped,” Rowen told WTSP. “There was no handicapped-parking sticker, it wasn’t a handicapped plate. And so I said to him you’re parked in the one handicapped space and you need to move your car.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Second you posted " And it sounds like the Starbuck’s solution is to ask the landlord to move the handicapped parking away from the store."
What else is that to mean? *rme*
“I’ve got nothing against handicapped people, if it weren’t for them I’d never find a parking space.” - Gallagher
Let the cops handle it. Don’t just into stuff like this. And don’t take it inside Starbucks or any other place. It’s bad for business — and its a customers fault not the business’s. Likewise, the offender is prolly an A-hole and won’t care much while other customersmight be upset by the disturbance.
Make the guy’s latte cost him $250 and be done with it.
...“incurable alcoholic”. Looks like I found a new profession!
Although this guy is obviously a fruit loop, this topic is not as simple and clear as it may appear. It comes up a few times every year on FR.
The conundrum resolves to this : So many real and psychosomatic "handicaps" exist that literally can't be proven (and accepted uncritically) that no one can say with factual certainty that someone is or is not "handicapped."
Complicating that, is that even a "sticker" or interior mirror tag can be easily obtained. How can any doctor confirm that mind-numbing knee pain does or does not exist in a claimant?
Of course the small-minded busybody controlling twits are handicapped in an entirely different sense.
Hmm, if he had called the police first, some people would say he was a jerk for not confronting the violators directly. In either case, I think Starbucks made a poor business decision. There’s so many better places to get a cup of joe. I hope he finds better coffee.
Since special targeted groups were created and imposed by law with special social privileges and exemptions from the rules that apply to the rest of us.
Unfortunately, I am 100% sure that concept of handicapped parking was not created for the "mentally handicapped."
Why should a mentally handicapped person be allowed to have a driver's license?
Why can’t we all just get along?
May have only been “optically challenged” not mentally challenged!
“Wait a minute you want the landlord to move the handicapped parking away from the store?”
You misread what he wrote. He said it was their solution, he didn’t say it was a good idea
.
>> “Unfortunately, I can’t boycott Starbucks since I don’t drink their bitter swill, anyway
.
DITTO!
.
>> “Unfortunately, I can’t boycott Starbucks since I don’t drink their bitter swill, anyway” <<
.
DITTO!
you speculated that the person who parked in the handicapped parking space was an employee
From the story: " "threatening the well-being of a customer or partner (employee)." (Do I need to put the word 'employee' in bold for you? "...customer or ... employee" is a disjunctive which suggests the illegal parker could be either a customer or an employee. Thus, my speculation that the manager got so bent out of shape because an employee was whining.
If he or she was an employee he or she should have known not to park there.
Not really a logical statement on your part. Because of the signage, ANYONE should have known not to park there if they weren't handicapped. Employment status shouldn't have any impact on whether one was willfully violating the law.
Second you posted " And it sounds like the Starbuck’s solution is to ask the landlord to move the handicapped parking away from the store."
Why would they need to work with the landlord to change the parking arrangement if they weren't planning to move the handicapped parking to another part of the lot. It is clear from this statement " Starbucks is also working with the landlord of the property where this store is located to improve the parking situation. It is our goal to provide a warm, friendly and positive experience for all of our customers," that they want the landlord to re-arrange the parking in some manner. Since enforcing the current arrangement would be 'warm, friendly and positive' for the handicapped customers, they must want to make things warm, friendly and positive by moving the signs out of the way of the lazy bums who are healthy but don't want to have to walk a few extra feet to get overpriced, bitter, coffee.
Starbucks shareholder, by any chance?
Libs are bad people.
Sounds like my brother. It finally killed him at age 45.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.