NYT commenter:Systemic racism is definitely an issue in the USA, but I do not believe this incident is an example of such racism.

Amy: What we don't know is whether she would have treated two white men in the same situation similarly. People are guessing this way or that -- but no, we really don't know.

And we're never going to know that until, taking a cue from O.J. Simpson's book, she puts out her book "If I Did It: Confessions of the Racist."

I would say it's more likely than not that she wouldn't have treated two white guys the same, unless los dudes blancos were particularly suspicious-looking.

So, a woman is working alone by herself in a cafe, and closing time is about fifteen minutes away. A guy, a tall muscular black guy with tattoos, walks in. She quickly tells him, "I'm sorry sir, we're closing a bit early tonight. I was just going to put up the 'Closed' sign." He's looks dismayed, then turns around and leaves. Later, when she's talking to a friend on the phone, she admits she wouldn't have done that if the customer had been a white woman.

Was that racist? Sexist? Neither? Racist and Sexist? Tattooist?

I agree, from an isolated incident, I can’t tell if it’s racist or not.

I imagine myself in the same curcumstances. I can’t imagine why they didn’t just buy a cup of coffee.

Perhaps there were lots of white people who hang around and don’t buy coffee. I don’t know.

Ironically, on Saturday, I visited Starbucks and made a purchase in the drive-thru. Feeling anti-social, I was eating it in the parking lot when I decided I needed to use the restroom. I zipped right to the restroom, imagining that I might have to explain that yes, I indeed had already make a purchase.,I’m a white woman. I don’t have any expectation of being able to just walk in anywhere and use the facilities without a purchase.

I suppose it depends on three protocols:

1. Do you allow lengthy occupation of the site by people who do not purchase? Is this the formal protocol, written in the manual someplace? Yes or no.

2. Does the site in question follow the first protocol or is the local procedure to allow such hanging out, thus leading people to believe it's allowed?

3. Is number two applied without regard to race or other group distinctions?

I can’t imagine why they didn’t just buy a cup of coffee. ~ Jen at April 19, 2018 3:53 AM

I posted this link yesterday. This article asks the same question and speculates that it was a set up from the beginning.

Like Conan's link I think this was a setup. I imagine several businesses were tried and this Starbucks is the first one who got caught.

I have no idea how Starbucks operates in big cities. But I am betting a profitable location has to have more security and more restrictions than a travel plaza on I-25.
In the Rocky Mountain west the only place I have ever encounted locked rest rooms is in the occasional gas station where the door of the rest room in question was not visible from the cashiers desk.

If there is a problem with non paying cuatomers hanging out in Starbucks using the free wifi, and trashing the restrooms, I expect one of two things to happen. Either law enforcement is going to be called, or Starbucks is going to quietly close up shop in areas where they can’t protect their business and attract paying customers.

Unfortunately the next frontier of social justice is going to look a lot like the feces covered side walks of San Francisco.

I thought about this, too, the possibility that this was a set-up.

If I were told I had to order coffee to use the rest room -- or if there were a sign like that -- I'd just order coffee, or tell the person that I was waiting for a friend before I did.

There doesn't seem to have been any sort of explanation like that from them.

Also, I understand that businesses have a right to say that restrooms are for customers only. I have, on a number of occasions (not many, but a few) offered a business a dollar to use their restroom. (I've done this more in Paris than the U.S. -- a number of times there -- because you just don't expect to use the bathroom without paying for something there.)

None of the people in your example have valid claims of racism. If they'd simply get the chips off their shoulders and behave as we rightly expect all human beings to behave, they would no longer experience what they falsely believe is racism. Because they'd no longer be earning it.

To sum it all up: Why couldn't they just order a damn cup of coffee?

If Starbucks were to allow customers to use their premises without the expectation of any purchase, that would be their goodwill extended to customers. We certainly cannot demand such treatment. ~ commenter on New York Times article quoted

Um, they're not "customers" without a purchase. That's why the signs usually say "Restroom is for Customers Only."

If you don't give them your custom, you're not a customer.

I'm a white man and I've never been asked to leave a place of business or been denied the use of the restroom because of not buying anything.

I've never had that experience because, being a white guy, I've never assumed I was entitled to hang out in someone's place of business and use their facilities without patronizing their business. Before I was 10 my parents taught me that, partly to save me from becoming an inconsiderate jerk, and partly to save me from the embarrassment of someone having to ask me to leave some place.

It would be interesting to find out if proprietors of color would allow a couple of white guys - or even a couple of guys of color - to hang out, take up a table and chairs and use their facilities without buying anything.

I put the blame of the mothers of the two guys who were arrested for not teaching them better when they were kids. When their friend arrived were they planning for the three of them to hang out and have their meeting there?

I usually buy a token thing. I wouldn't if I was waiting for someone. The polite thing is to wait for them and order together unless for some reason you were there way in advance.

This one seemed strange, but the other one people were talking about, the one where they let the white guy use the bathroom before he ordered really did feel like a set up, and the guy holding the camera was so belligerent that if I was the woman behind the counter I would be nervous too. And maybe call the cops.

As for a big guy covered with tattoos at closing time, I'd be nervous no matter what race he was. Unless he gave off a low-key alternative vibe.

The problem is, it sucks as an individual to be judged but at the same time people have to keep themselves safe, and we use data and statistics, usually from personal or friends' experience or sometimes if we're more academically inclined from studies, or from anecdotes we've heard, and we look for patterns.

Fact is, if the big guy turned out to be a rapist the employee would deal with all the shit of, "Why were you so stupid as to let him in, this is your fault", so it's a no-win situation for her.

In crowded, densely populated cities, there tends to be high populations of homeless persons. If they are allowed to congregate in any warm business establishment, they will. This may not be the case in this situation. Also, if I was going to conduct business, which is what some people claim these gentlemen were doing, I would purchase a product from the business. If word gets out that you can hold your meetings at Starbucks for free, many persons in crowded cities will do just that. Paying customers will then be denied seats.

To add more to the conversation - I did watch the "unedited" version of the video.

The place looked crowded - tables on BOTH sides of where these two guys were sitting had people sitting in them.

It is one thing to hang out, by the door or near the counter, waiting for the rest of your party.

It is another to occupy a seat - without buying anything - while waiting. That shows zero class.

As others have noted, Starbucks has sort of a reputation for people setting up shop for hours.

However, every location is different. Some places have plenty of "free" space while other places are filled to the max. This place looked filled. The manager I could see she was in a tight bind - allow non-paying "customers" to take up precious space and have paying customers leave (and maybe never come back because they couldn't find a seat). Not good for business. period.

To buy nothing and ask to use the restroom and be told to buy something or leave and THEN occupy a seat is trying to start something.

So, yea, either they are THAT stupid or it does sound like a set up.

I used to get weird looks from Yuppie White people, and comments, from following policy when I worked at a major retailer in Electronics. Yes, if the item is locked up, I either need to ring you out right now, or take the item up to the cash register up front for you to pick up later.

One problem with all the cries about racism is that young black hoodlums spoil the party for all the non-criminal minorities. In my entire life I have broken up a fight (2 women, one about to get kicked in the face) and got punched in the face for my trouble, been threatened by 4 men, and escaped a mugging by 2 young men by running fast to my car--all black people. No other minority or white has even looked at me funny much less assaulted me. And I am not even counting crazy homeless people on the train or street. So pardon me if I might be a little wary of sketchy looking young black men. If I was running a starbucks in an iffy neighborhood I might feel even more wary.

No one has mentioned something that is very important, IMO.

According to the Washington Post, the HuffPost, and plenty more media, guess how many minutes it took between the men's entrance and the 911 call? Can anyone imagine this happening if they were white? Personally, I would expect that two white people - unless they were very young, loud, and covered with tattoos - would have been allowed 30 minutes or so.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/768536/black-customers-only-starbucks-2-minutes-before-manager-called-police

This isn't statistically rigorous, but an author writing a bool about Starbucks interviewed on NPR, who has spent hundreds of hours in hundreds of Starbucks, observed the treatment of many non-purchasers there, and he said only two categories were ever asked to purchase or leave - those who appeared to be homeless and black males.

That said, there are plenty of strong secondary correlations to verbal, nonverbal, and sartorial and behavioral cues he could be the basis for the pattern he observed.

Starbucks is selling a status signal as much as coffee, and that requires, among other things, filtering their occupants based on strata of wealth, education, and hipster fashion sense. Sooner or later, they were bound to trip over secondar racial correlations. It just shows that no amount of progressive posturing can save you from the wrath of SJW's