Starbucks had the same policy until too many politically minded idiots used the store to fight a won-and-done issue by scaring customers. Allowance and cooperation didn’t work, so they opted for “take your sociopolitical props elsewhere”.
I believe the statement in the article is incorrect. As I understand it, the head of Starbucks only asked that people not open carry and not hold open carry rallies in the stores. He said nothing of concealed carry. I think he is trying, maybe clumsily, to back his stores out of this political fight.
Yep. Starbucks quietly had this neutral on guns policy for years and except for the odd customer complaint over someone openly carrying, it wasn’t a big deal and Starbucks always deferred to local laws allowing open carry. That was until some pro-gun folks started organizing and showing up in large groups for what they called “Starbucks Appreciation Days”, basically flaunting the fact they were carrying, advertizing it and daring people (liberal coffee drinkers I presume) to be offended or confront them, putting a business in the unfortunate position of trying to remain neutral, not to offend or lose any of its paying customers and not become a rallying place for both pro and anti gun groups.
If responsible gun owners in areas with open carry laws just went about their everyday business and showed that openly carrying is perfect legal and safe instead of rallying en mass at Starbucks to prove their point then the Starbucks wouldn’t have been drawn into a controversy that for years they had avoided being drawn into.
FWIW, I don’t think it is against the law, at least not in many places for a guy to go shirtless or people to walk around barefoot but a business is able to have and enforce a “no shirt, no shoes; no service” policy. Heck there are probably still some high end restaurants that require men to wear jackets if not jackets and ties. And there was a recent post about a restaurant that didn’t want to serve parents with small children and babies or allow strollers and a lot of folks here agreed with the restaurant.
Their business - their rules.
“FWIW, I don’t think it is against the law, at least not in many places for a guy to go shirtless or people to walk around barefoot but a business is able to have and enforce a “no shirt, no shoes; no service” policy.”
Here in Washington state, any business can put up a “No Guns” sign. But unless it is a bar, one can carry a gun if prepared to be asked to leave if someone spots it. If you don’t leave, then it becomes trespassing. Just like I imagine a “no shirt, no shoes” sign would be enforced.
Excellent point. In this case, the gun owners made the same tactical mistake as the homosexuals. In the case of the homosexuals, their "in-your-face" approach has backfired. People generally are live-and-let-live types and we normally wouldn't make it our business to worry about how others are living our lives. But when you insist on calling attention to yourself and forcing others to take notice, it usually does not end well for your cause.