Way to go, Starbucks..

[SunsetBengal]

Man gets permabanned from Starbucks, not just a single location, but the entire franchise.  For what, you might wonder?  For asking able bodied people to not park in the handicapped spots..

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2015/7/25/starbucks_ban_tampa.html

[StLucieBengal]

Lol

Ofc they would do this .... Haha

[BmorePat87]

No, he got banned for coming into their store and harassing customers.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-26-2015, 09:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, he got banned for coming into their store and harassing customers.

Well, perhaps if you had a disabled person in your family, you would see it the way he sees it.

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/07/23/starbucks-bans-local-man-for-life-for-defending-handicapped/30602857/

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2015, 09:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, perhaps if you had a disabled person in your family, you would see it the way he sees it.

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/07/23/starbucks-bans-local-man-for-life-for-defending-handicapped/30602857/

I'm sure I would. I probably just wouldn't cry to my local news station after I got banned from starbucks for following people into their store and harassing them. 

[*Nately120*]

Welp, people who park in those spaces are egotistical d-bags and I can get this guy's beef. Then again, I can also get Starbucks' annoyance that he is taking the argument inside their establishment and causing a ruckus, mostly because enforcement of handicapped parking is the job of the local law enforcement and not some manager of of a coffee store.

With that being said, banning him from all places seems wildly absurd, but I don't know the whole story either. Slightly related, I used to work for a sports team and you'd be amazed at the things people wanted me to run off and enforce that had nothing to do with us and our position.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-26-2015, 09:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm sure I would. I probably just wouldn't cry to my local news station after I got banned from starbucks for following people into their store and harassing them. 

The man also happens to be a business owner, I'm sure he was simply flabbergasted that Starbucks gave him the corporate brush off.  Besides, what do you have against disabled folks, that you're so willing to put the man in question, directly in the wrong?

Heck, more than once, I have been tempted to utilize my deep, booming, outdoor voice to shame a parking phony..

[*Nately120*]

(07-26-2015, 10:01 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The man also happens to be a business owner, I'm sure he was simply flabbergasted that Starbucks gave him the corporate brush off.  Besides, what do you have against disabled folks, that you're so willing to put the man in question, directly in the wrong?

Heck, more than once, I have been tempted to utilize my deep, booming, outdoor voice to shame a parking phony..

Yes, but why does Starbucks have to deal with this guy's ire?  He followed the customer inside (it seems...I didn't really read the thing, admittedly) and at that point it becomes Starbucks' problem.  Fraudulent parking is handled by the police, loud disruptive people in Starbucks are handled by Starbucks.

He inadvertently involved Starbucks and it became him vs. the coffee joint at that point.  The reason he was making a scene in the private business is sadly irrelevant to the business itself.  Plus him pointing out that he has a disabled family member sort of hurts his side of the story in my mind because emotions and people taking things personally really escalate a situation.

In summation, if I'm Starbucks I tell the guy the parking is between him, the guy he's mad at, and local law enforcement and please do not let your altercation take place in my establishment.  In short "Keep it cool in here and kill each other outside of my business, for all I care."  That is all.

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2015, 10:01 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The man also happens to be a business owner, I'm sure he was simply flabbergasted that Starbucks gave him the corporate brush off.  Besides, what do you have against disabled folks, that you're so willing to put the man in question, directly in the wrong?

Heck, more than once, I have been tempted to utilize my deep, booming, outdoor voice to shame a parking phony..

As a special ed teacher, I think it goes without saying that I don't have anything against disabled people. I think it's really tacky to suggest that I must if I think it's inappropriate to make a scene inside of a business.

He is directly in the wrong. He admitted to following customers into the store. As a business owner, he should probably understand that Starbucks cannot deny service to a customer for parking in a handicap spot nor can they enforce parking laws. He should also understand that they don't want some guy coming into their place of business and yelling at their customers. Better to lose one than many. 

To use your move: what do you have against businesses that you're so willing to put the business in question directly in the wrong?

[*Nately120*]

(07-26-2015, 10:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As a special ed teacher, I think it goes without saying that I don't have anything against disabled people. I think it's really tacky to suggest that I must if I think it's inappropriate to make a scene inside of a business.

He is directly in the wrong. He admitted to following customers into the store. As a business owner, he should probably understand that Starbucks cannot deny service to a customer for parking in a handicap spot nor can they enforce parking laws. He should also understand that they don't want some guy coming into their place of business and yelling at their customers. Better to lose one than many. 

To use your move: what do you have against businesses that you're so willing to put the business in question directly in the wrong?

Yea, I might be exaggerating a bit but it's almost like we are expecting Starbucks to tolerate this man forcing an altercation in their private business that wanted or deserves no part in it simply because he has a supposed point to be angry.  What should Starbucks have done, moved some tables aside so they could duke it out, or something?

[StLucieBengal]

Duncan Donuts and Timmy Ho's make a much better coffee anyway

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2015, 10:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Duncan Donuts

Is that place owned by Cleo McDowell?

[fredtoast]

(07-26-2015, 10:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Fraudulent parking is handled by the police, loud disruptive people in Starbucks are handled by Starbucks.



In summation, if I'm Starbucks I tell the guy the parking is between him, the guy he's mad at, and local law enforcement and please do not let your altercation take place in my establishment. 

This.

I have no sympathy for a healthy person who takes a handicapped parking spot, but it has to be handled in the proper manner.

Starbucks can't hve hotheads handing out vigilante justice in their stores.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2015, 10:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Is that place owned by Cleo McDowell?

I can't see the face without thinking "Shut up Junior!"

[Johnny Cupcakes]

There's something more to this story, no doubt. You don't get permabanned by a nationwide chain joint for simply asking folks to not park in handicapped spots.

I have a soft spot for the handicapped though, and will say something to some able-bodied dude hogging up a spot meant for the handicapped. I volunteered with People Working Cooperatively and Habitat For Humanity helping to make homes more ADA accessible for people who had recently become disabled. Seeing how rough they have it in daily life made me really conscious of their struggles in public.

It's not illegal to do though, in a lot of places, because most parking lots are privately owned. Also, you have to have an actual sign erected for it to be illegal... You can't just have the painted on handicap logo.

[*bfine32*]

The man should have stayed outside the business and called the police. WTS, a total franchise ban seems quite severe. There must be more.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Then again, Starbucks could have defused the situation quickly and not lost any customers if the manager would have told the guy screaming to calm down and then turned to the guy parked in a handicapped space that if he didn't move his car, he wouldn't be served. If the guy parked in the handicapped space made a scene, then ban him which would most likely gained more customers.

I could be wrong, but the public is a fickle crowd and Starbucks will come out looking bad because of this.

[BmorePat87]

(07-26-2015, 10:35 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Then again, Starbucks could have defused the situation quickly and not lost any customers if the manager would have told the guy screaming to calm down and then turned to the guy parked in a handicapped space that if he didn't move his car, he wouldn't be served. If the guy parked in the handicapped space made a scene, then ban him which would most likely gained more customers.

I could be wrong, but the public is a fickle crowd and Starbucks will come out looking bad because of this.

From his own statements, it sounds like this was happening over a period of time. He admits to confronting multiple customers. He probably was told multiple times to stop.

This quote from him shows his delusion, though


"Instead of the manager supporting me ... instead of saying... 'I'm not going to take your order until you move your car,' she [the manager] would take care of them [the customers] and then tell me to leave them alone," he said.

You honestly expect a store to demand that a customer prove they're handicap and refuse service until they do?

[StLucieBengal]

(07-26-2015, 10:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Is that place owned by Cleo McDowell?

Yup. Haha

No idea why I spelled that wrong hahaha

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-26-2015, 10:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: From his own statements, it sounds like this was happening over a period of time. He admits to confronting multiple customers. He probably was told multiple times to stop.

This quote from him shows his delusion, though


"Instead of the manager supporting me ... instead of saying... 'I'm not going to take your order until you move your car,' she [the manager] would take care of them [the customers] and then tell me to leave them alone," he said.

You honestly expect a store to demand that a customer prove they're handicap and refuse service until they do?

Like I said, the public is a fickle crowd. Remember how people came together in support of that Pizza Chain and Chik-fil-lay? 

All I'm saying is Starbucks handled this all wrong. If Starbucks customers are constantly taking up handicap spaces, maybe Starbucks is the problem?

It should have been handled differently, now Starbucks has bad press and will most likely lose customers. I believe we will see commercials soon saying how Starbucks doesn't hate the disabled and how they even have disabled people working for them. Like that one lady from somewhere, I don't remember who made the commercial stating "I'm not a witch" which everyone knew but had to say something about it because it was out there.