Philly Real Estate Brokers Arrested at Starbucks, Led Out In Hand-Cuffs for Trespassing (Toilet Usage w/o Ordering Anything)

Since you asked ... wrote:

celery wrote:

Asking for evidence of racial motivation when something bad happens to a black person? What a crazy idea. Obviously 100m must be a racist for suggesting something so obvious.

Since you asked, 100m is a r a c i s t. Check previous posts by 100m. 100m denies the humanity of Arab people. 100m supports apartheid in Palestine. 100m supports, as he sees it, white European Zionists right steal land from Arabs in Palestine over the past 100 years. This is not a Jew issue. 100m also supports apartheid in Palestine against black Ethiopian Jews. Proof that 100m is a r a c i s t.

I responded to a statement from 100m in THIS THREAD and pointed out how people would wrongly call him racist because of it. Then you claim there are numerous example from other threads where 100m says racist things, BUT YOU FAIL TO ACTUALLY QUOTE ANYTHING FROM THOSE THREADS, and you expect me to be convinced of what exactly?

In fact, I think you just proved my point that people would call 100m racist without any evidence to support it.

It just goes to show that in the current state of political discourse, if someone calls you racist, you know you just won the argument. Thanks for trying to play with the grown ups though. Run along now.

The former Starbucks manager who called the police on two non-paying black customers earlier this month may have a good case for bringing a defamation suit against the coffee company.

Calling someone a racist might seem to be an opinion (and opinions, even poorly reasoned ones, cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit). But courts have shown a willingness to entertain defamation suits against companies that irresponsibly misrepresent provable facts and, in doing so, portray people as racist.

So much for the narrative that "every Starbucks" allows loitering. THIS ONE didn't.

Afro-American (black) Carl Jackson wrote:

In 2016, I walked into a Starbucks in Hollywood, California and asked for a code to use their restroom. I was initially denied access by a black male barista because I hadn’t purchased anything, so I bought a drink. Later, that barista explained to me they enforced the policy to prevent the homeless from taking “bird baths” in their restrooms. Was that barista racist or sexist?

OK, maybe it's a baristo for a male, but the point is taken. Hollywood has different rules than Philly.

The two men arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks outlet reached settlements with both the coffee-house chain and the city over their arrest, which touched off protests in the city and debate nationwide. The terms of the settlement with Starbucks remains confidential, but the two men settled for just a dollar each from the city — and a pledge of $200,000 for a fund to help young entrepreneurs. They claim all they want is a seat at the table, though the incident seemed to suggest they wanted more of a seat on the toilet.

“The CEO of Starbucks is going to personally mentor these two young men going forward. After they met, he was so impressed and they were so impressed with one another that they’re going to have a continuing relationship,” Cohen told “GMA” co-anchor Robin Roberts. “So not only do they have a seat at the table and not only do we have this settlement, but we have the beginning of a relationship.” …

Must have had a complete no-case to settle so soon, for so little. Even big-stream media didn't find them too impressive to fly with, after the original spincycle.

Or, maybe they settled for nothing because they had a sincere aim of helping out with black entrepreneurial development?

You're telling me that they couldn't even force a settlement to get a year of free coffee? No, they clearly didn't want a monetary settlement for themselves.

xzcvzxcvxcz wrote:

Or, maybe they settled for nothing because they had a sincere aim of helping out with black entrepreneurial development?

You're telling me that they couldn't even force a settlement to get a year of free coffee? No, they clearly didn't want a monetary settlement for themselves.

Shakedown scheme that not even Jesse or Al thought of!

Call it "black enterpreneurship" to get the payola! Never mind this is illegal under anti-discrimination laws (of course, reverse cases (almost) never get prosecuted, wink-wink).

Likely 19 of the first 20 "enterpreneurs" in this program will be Donte and Rashon's BFFs.

xzcvzxcvxcz wrote:

You're telling me that they couldn't even force a settlement to get a year of free coffee? No, they clearly didn't want a monetary settlement for themselves.

Only in the wiggly world of "Public Opinion" (run by MSM forces) could they hope for a dime (which is like 1/50 of a cup at today's rates).

Not even SJW Starbucks CEO would pay off these trespassers. This was a save-face way to keep everyone in the loop, complete with feel-good GMA appearance (Robin Roberts).

Still need to flirt an angle to leverage them on to Oprah.

xzcvzxcvxcz wrote:

Or, maybe they settled for nothing because they had a sincere aim of helping out with black entrepreneurial development?

You're telling me that they couldn't even force a settlement to get a year of free coffee? No, they clearly didn't want a monetary settlement for themselves.

I'm sure their lawyers didn't mind that they settled for less that what Kramer settled for. Hahahaha.

Maybe, just maybe, they settle for next to nothing, because Starbucks and the Police did nothing wrong.

celery wrote:

xzcvzxcvxcz wrote:

Or, maybe they settled for nothing because they had a sincere aim of helping out with black entrepreneurial development?

You're telling me that they couldn't even force a settlement to get a year of free coffee? No, they clearly didn't want a monetary settlement for themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORMNmZgE3E

I'm sure their lawyers didn't mind that they settled for less that what Kramer settled for. Hahahaha.

Maybe, just maybe, they settle for next to nothing, because Starbucks and the Police did nothing wrong.

i thought We all lost interest in this cluster F**k, a week ago.

Porkie wrote:

i thought We all lost interest in this cluster F**k, a week ago.

Why do you think their lawyers/agents had to prime up the sob-story GMA appearance?

Still some weeks to go until the Eric Holder re-education camps (day off) at SB.