Is Starbucks Racist?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2018, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the application of the directive is applied disproportionately to black people over white people, then yes, the actions are racist. If a person gives more leeway to a white person over a black person on the loitering front, then that is racist. The fact that this directive was for inner city locations, where it would affect primarily minority customers does speak to the corporate effort, which is probably why Starbucks hasn't come out about that.

If there is a company wide memo about this talking about reducing loitering without purchases, fine. But when your application of such a policy, whether through the location selection or through the discretion by the manager, impacts minorities in a disproportionate way then it is a policy that is rooted in racial bias.

I agree that Starbucks should come forward and take ownership of their policy decision, rather than staging some companywide re-teaching effort for show.  I highly doubt that the directive itself was intended to be racist, but intended to keep loiterers in general from choking out business in those areas.  The fact that people are making an issue of the people involved being black is what is ironic.  If it were white people that refused to leave, no one would likely bat an eye.  They were asked to leave, they refused to go.  At that point, they are lawbreakers.  Why the sympathy and "outrage", simply because of the offender's race?  

Is Starbucks supposed to ignore the fact that they are loitering, because they are black, and that makes it OK?