BOYCOTT: Starbucks CEO Lies About Not Being Anti-Gun

The CEO of Starbucks Coffee shops has made a decision. He wants customers with the legal right to carry a gun to stay out of his coffee shops. But he lies when he says he is not anti-gun.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has made a policy decision saying that his company is “not a policy maker” and should not have to take any stance in the gun issue, whether pro or anti-gun. I agree with that, as it happens.

For the last few years Starbucks had become the locus of a tug of war between legal concealed carry permit holders and liberals. Both factions had held their “appreciation” days by showing up to tout their issues.

But Schultz is tired of his coffee shops being in the center of the storm. So, Schultz says that from now on he wants gun owners not to carry their guns in his stores.

But then he lies to your face, gun owners.

“We are not pro-gun or anti-gun,” Mr. Schultz told The Associated Press, noting that customers will still be served if they choose to a carry gun.

This is clearly a lie! If he’s saying he wants gun owners not to carry their guns anymore, then his desired ban of guns cannot be construed as anything but anti-gun.

Henceforth, all true Americans that support the U.S. Constitution should refuse to patronize Starbucks coffee shops.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Police State: EPA Raids in Alaska Exposes Heavily Armed Federal Agencies
  • 914

    I would not pay 6 bucks for a cup of coffee period anyways.

    • Par4Course

      Your choice – but it has nothing to do with guns. I wouldn’t eat at McDonald’s either but I don’t even know if they have a gun policy.

  • I don’t like their coffee.

    Full Stop.

    • Commander_Chico

      Have you been there lately? They have several varieties on tap, not just the over-roasted type they called “Charbucks.”

    • LiberalNightmare

      Some of them sell beer.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    What’s sort of funny about these asinine boycott posts of the right and the putative right (whether directed towards Target or Starbucks or whatever the faux outrage of the day on talk radio happens to be) is that virtually every rabble rouser out there owns a piece of the company to which the boycott claim relates. Take Starbucks, for example. It’s part of the S&P 500. It’s also widely-held by pension funds and it’s a common holding in major large cap funds. Do you own a 401k with active or indexed mutual funds or ETFs? Well, Sparky, odds are in that event that you own and profit from Starbucks. Are you invested in a pension fund? Vested? Receiving pension payouts? How about a qualified profit sharing fund? If so, guess what, Cochise, you’re profiting from and have so profited from Starbucks. The other silly irony is that the same people who want to boycott Starbucks went into a frothing rage when left-wing idiots (BIRM) decided they wanted to boycott Chick-fil-a. FYI, merely because Starbucks’ CEO is a liberal idiot doesn’t mean anyone of substance will or should boycott them. Along similar lines, Berkshire Hathaway is not a bad investment or a bad company just because Warren Buffett has devolved into an airheaded liberal hypocrite and hedge funds are not evil just because most of their managers are crazy Paulbot or Soros acolytes. Sometimes the cocoon of erstwhile conservative politics becomes so thick it takes the jaws of life to extricate one’s self. Not a good place in which to reside.

    • rancefrayger

      Warren Buffet is an airhead? We should all be as atmospherically endowed.

      • jim_m

        Nah, he isn’t an airhead. He knows exactly what he is doing. Take his opposition to the Keystone pipeline. WHile he poses as saying that he is against it environmentally, the reality is that he is invested in rail and trucking concerns whose value would be damaged if the pipeline were built. While lionized as a long term investor most of his ideas are short term like the pipeline and all his ideas are exclusively for his own benefit even though he couches them as benefiting everyone (indeed the long term play would have been to support the pipeline and the businesses that would have benefited for the next half century). Fact is that he is enormously wealthy and with that enormous wealth he feels entitled to tell everyone else how they should live. Most of his wealth today is not due to what he does today but is the natural result of investments made ages ago. There is little to suggest that he has any brilliance today in his ability to pick out successful companies and with the amount of money he has he can pretty much make a stock successful by buying into it and then recommending it. His fame is what makes the stock successful not the stock itself.

    • LiberalNightmare

      So its hypocritical for a conservative to complain about Starbucks, because our mutual funds may actually own Starbucks stock? Its an interesting point, actually it reminds me of Hillary Clinton railing against Wal-Mart while owning stock in the company.

      Might want to check the contents of your own mutual funds before you spend too much time on your moral high-horse.

      Secondly, I find your use of the native american name ‘Cochise’ in reference to conservatives that you disagree with, to be demeaning to native-american’s and racially insensitive. Please consider taking a cultural sensitivity class before your next contribution to our discussion.

      • Gary Gary

        It’s not about money, or the shareholders. The one escape I did have was to visit Starbucks once a week, for coffee, of which I will be going elsewhere to forget all the world’s problems for my 15. i’m not there to listen to the liberal rant about, gun control, the poor blacks that march around and protest, gay rights, or Isreal haters. It’s just to get a dam cup of coffee. to the CEO, just what exactly were you hired to do?

    • Gary Gary

      Hey, you writing a book? Are you his brother ?

  • jim_m

    My understanding is that he is trying to split the difference by saying that he does not want customers or employees to carry when in the stores but is not going to demand that the stores put up gun free zone notices. That is the point. He is saying please don’t but he is not going to actually ban them.

    Wait until they start putting gun free zone signs in their stores and THEN you can say they are banning guns. They have not said that they are going to do that yet and from a legal standpoint they have not banned guns until they put up signs.

  • Commander_Chico

    Right, boycott a creative, internationally successful American entrepreneur because he’s not “politically correct.”

    • Jwb10001

      I think you got that wrong being anti-gun is the politically correct position.

      • Of course he got it wong, he’s our soi disant cognoscenti.

      • Commander_Chico

        There’s right wing and left wing “political correctness.” Same shit, different bad smell. “Boycotts” for nonsense.

    • Retired military

      Gee I guess Chico never heard of the OWS protests?

      Oh wait that is right. It is okay to “boycott a creative, internationally successful American entrepreneur because he’s not “politically correct.” as long as you break windows, defecate on police cars, leave trash everywhere, and break laws.

      • Commander_Chico

        Starbucks actually delivers a product and a service, unlike the casino money-manipulators. It’s called “value added,” look it up.

        • Retired military

          I guess banks don’t provide a product or service Chico
          Or Stock exchanges, or mortgage companies
          If I had to choose between the businesses that OWS protested and starbucks I would choose an overprice cup of coffee last.
          Please tell me what business that OWS protested didn’t provide a product or service that was more valuable to society than an overprice cup of coffee. Go ahead I’ll wait while you look it up. You’re just pissed because you got called on your support of the OWS protest.
          As usual you want to have your cake and eat it too.
          I also fully expect that you will not reply because it’s the Chico way. If you do reply I fully expect to hear about the evils of the oligaphy, the eeeebbbillll Joooooooos or how Obama may be bad but Bush was so much worse. After all they are your stock answers.

          • Retired military

            Just as I thought. No response from Chico and the man.

      • Amazing blinders our soi disant cognoscenti wears.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I don’t think that Starbucks has ever declared themselves to be ‘pro-gun’. At best, I would characterize them as ambivalent to second amendment issues. They have always said that they would respect local laws. Nothing more, nothing less.

    This is a reaction to the ‘open-carry’ demonstrations. Whiny hipsters show up at a Starbucks while open carrying their weapons in order to make a demonstration (but mostly to rub lefties nose in it – and generate You tube hits.) Frankly, the tactics of these demonstrations are pretty distasteful to me.

    My own Second Amendment views are pretty extreme, I believe that open carry of firearms should be the default position for anyone that hasn’t committed a felony. I believe that firearms should be sold in vending machines for anyone tall enough to reach the coin slot. I also believe that you shouldnt be forced to carry a weapon if you don’t want to.

    I cant blame Starbucks for this position, all they want to do is sell coffee, not be a prop for a second amendment demonstration.

    • Any weapon issued to any Infantry formation in the United States Armed Forces.

  • Retired military

    I have to disagree with Mr Houston’s take on this particular situation. If I walked into a business (especially if I had young kids with me) and saw someone other than a cop open carrying I would probably leave and call the cops on top of that.
    Whereas it may be legal to open carry in some places in my mind that doesn’t mean it is the smart thing to do. It is sorta like yelling “bikers are pussies” in a biker bar. You have the first amendment right to do so. It could have unwanted consequences though.

    • Nunyabusiness

      I know this reply is rather late.
      That being said, YOU are a big part of the problem in the USA today. People that hate the Constitutional rights of Americans need to get an amendment to the Constitution passed or leave.

  • Paul Hooson

    I’m pro-gun rights, but I don’t know why anyone needs a gun to go to some nerd business like a Starbucks. I’ve never seen anyone threatening drinking coffee at a Starbucks that requires a gun for protection. This isn’t like going into some tough roadhouse bar. -But, a private business has the right to decide customer policies within reason except that violate state or federal laws. – An Oregon bakery refused to serve a lesbian couple for example, which was a violation of state law, leading to a series of problems that eventually closed that business. – Disneyland used to refused longhairs to enter because of some problem with some hoodlums one time. – Is Starbucks policy based off an actual incident or just a political policy. Does anyone know?

    • jim_m

      of course no one needs a gun to go buy a cup of coffee. What BS non sequitur is that? The reason one carries a gun is because you are going to be in a variety of situations, traveling to a number of places where there may arise a need to be armed. The reason you carry into a Starbucks is because you are carrying elsewhere too.

      And if you think that Starbucks is safe then I suggest you look up how safe Luby’s is. Or perhaps you could consider how safe the Navy Yard was this week, or any number of college campuses in recent memory or theaters in Colorado. The reason you carry is because insane jackasses don’t wait for you to come to them, they go and find you in the places you think you are safe. (and a clue for the clueless, Paul: Your fake macho, “I’m a biker and no one’s going to mess with me” doesn’t work with the mentally ill losers that commit mass shootings)

      And again, it is not a policy nor have they said that they are going to ban guns. It is hyperbolic panicking to claim that they are banning guns. From what I have heard they are not going to be putting up gun free zone signs which, if they did, in most states would mean that CCW holders could not legally carry into the stores.

      • Brucehenry

        When Jim is the Voice Of Reason, urging you not to lose your head, you know you’ve gone over the top.

      • Paul Hooson

        Don’t lose sight that I support gun rights Jim M. But, Luby’s was in a Texas town where many people carry guns everywhere, including the shooter in this massacre. – Tombstone, AZ was once the most armed town in the world, and also had the world’s worst murder rate as well. Worst than Lebanon or Bosnia, etc. – I might support the right to own guns because it’s a constitutional right. But, more guns hardly translates into less violence anywhere. There’s a big difference between supporting the Bill Of Rights as I do, and some unscientific view that more guns somehow means less crime, suicides, domestic violence, etc.

        • Like 0bama loves America and O. J. Simpson loves Nicole.

        • jim_m

          Unscientific? Go look up John Lott you drooling idiot if you want a serious, statistical argument that more guns actually do result in less crime. Besides, your original claim was that ccw was unnecessary in a Starbucks. You provided nothing to counter my point that ccw is not about where you go but about who you might run into.

          As for your supporting the bill of rights, it sounds like your support is much like that of the city of Chicago where you may have a right to own a gun but the city argues that your rights end at your front door. Bearing arms means being able to have a gun where you may actually need it even if it offends lefty idiots like yourself.

          • Paul Hooson

            I know one thing. No one’s walking into my $2 million dollar nightclub with any openly visible gun. For the safety of my customers, leave those guns at home….

          • jim_m

            Shorter Hooson: I believe in gun rights, just not for anyone else but myself.

          • Paul Hooson

            I support gun rights. But, that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t walk out of a Chuckie Cheese if some guy walks in the door with a gun. If some guys don’t have this amount of common sense

          • jim_m

            Your claim to support gun rights is bogus. You support peoples rights to own guns but not to use them for self defense. You just effectively declared that you would boycott any business that allowed someone to enter it with a gun.

          • Retired military

            Jim. I don’t recall him saying that. Please quote it. I have to admit I haven’t read every word he says.
            Also please answer this. Is it really smart to mix alcohol and firearms? Most folks cant even conceal carry in most places that sell alcohol.

          • jim_m

            Sure thing:

            I don’t know why anyone needs a gun to go to some nerd business like a Starbucks.

            No one’s walking into my $2 million dollar nightclub with any openly visible gun.

            that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t walk out of a Chuckie Cheese if some guy walks in the door with a gun.

            He doesn’t believe you need a gun to protect yourself.

            He will not allow his own customers to protect themselves

            He will not patronize a store that allows someone to legally enter it with a gun.

            And that doesn’t even begin to start in on his contra-factual statements that legal gun ownership does not decrease crime.

            To answer your last question: No it never makes sense to mix firearms and alcohol just like it doesn’t make sense to mix drinking with driving. I don’t do either. And it depends on the state where you can carry. Some will not allow you to carry into a bar but will allow you to carry into a restaurant with a liquor license.

          • Like 0bama loves America and O. J. Simpson loves Nicole.

          • Retired military

            Damn, yet again I agree with paul Hooson.

          • Be sure to enforce that with Law Enforcement as well.

        • Scalia

          Paul writes,

          [M]ore guns hardly translates into less violence anywhere.

          Perhaps you missed Crime Drops as Gun Sales in Virginia Soar.

      • Dylan Felts

        In many states CCEnhanced carry all places except police stations and certain areas of the court house. Mine is, and, I do.

  • Par4Course

    There is no Second Amendment right to carry a gun into a private business. This sort of nonsense – boycotting Starbucks because it discourages but does not bar patrons from bringing in weapons – will not further any legitimate goal.

  • Pingback: Is Starbucks Anti Gun Now?()

  • Suzanna Lytle

    that’s not going to stop the guy who walks in who actually wants to kill someone with a gun he doesn’t care what the law says about caring a gun when he plans on a more serious crime of killing someone with the gun. but it will ensure that no one inside the store fallowing the rules will be able to defend themselves. remember if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them.

  • Gary Gary

    What’s wrong with the liberal whack nut job? Must be an Obama supporter. Using Starbucks as a springboard into politics? Listen you clown, people go into Starbucks to buy coffee, that’s it. Keep your stupid, extreme radical views to yourself. Your love for gays, yoyr hatred for Isreal makes you sound like someone ready for a straight jacket and a mussel. Maybe it’s time to boycot Starbucks for awhile and watch the stock go down. What were you hired to do???