A new poll released this week points to troubling public perception surrounding the rainbow flag, historically understood as a symbol of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement.
Public Policy Polling found that the Americans polled were more offended by the rainbow flag than the confederate flag, the latter of which has remained a controversial image since the American Civil War and for many holds oppressive and racist symbolism.
Coffee chain Starbucks Corp has asked U.S. customers to leave their guns at home after being dragged into an increasingly fractious debate over U.S. gun rights in the wake of multiple mass shootings.
While many U.S. restaurant chains and retailers do not allow firearms on their properties, Starbucks’ policy had been to default to local gun laws, including “open carry” regulations in many U.S. states that allow people to bring guns into stores.
In August, this led gun-rights advocates to hold a national “Starbucks Appreciation Day” to thank the firm for its stance, pulling the company deeper into the fierce political fight.
Locations for Starbucks Appreciation Day events included Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were shot dead in an elementary school in December. Starbucks closed that shop before the event was scheduled to begin.
Chief Executive Howard Schultz said in an open letter to customers late Tuesday that Starbucks Appreciation Day events “disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of ‘open carry.’ To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores.”
The coffee chain did not, however, issue an outright ban on guns in its nearly 7,000 company-owned cafes, saying this would potentially require staff to confront armed customers.
The Seattle-based company hoped to give “responsible gun owners a chance to respect its request,” Schultz said.
The right wing response has been predictable, but what’s notable is it’s not just limited to the standard wingnut sites, it’s practically a web-wide attack on Starbucks:
Outdoor seating areas are COMMON AREAS of the strip mall the Starbucks is renting space in. They have control of their property (tables), but NOT THE AREA.
F U, Prez. Schultz, and your far left liberal agenda.
It is my God Endowed Unalienable Individual Right, secured by Our Constitution, to take any firearm I please anywhere I please. “Shall not be infringed, means exactly what it says.
Howard, nut up and post the gun free zone sign… you can be the coffee shop where the next massacre occurs…
Otherwise, stop playing liberal emotional hack, concealed means just that- you don’t know they are carrying. Glad there’s caribou or a host of mom and pop shops, and sorry the idea of self defense makes you squeamish. Consider my coffee dollars spent elsewhere than for your overpriced dreck.
Chick-fil-A is a true American corporation. I knew those Starbucks appreciation days were a complete waste of time. Starbucks does not support the Second Amendment. They just don’t want to lose customers. All the idiots that supported Starbucks obviously didn’t do research on the CEO Howard Schultz. If they had they would have been aware that not only is he a liberal moon bat. But more than half of his political donations go to Democrat politicians And the other portions go to Independence. He also was a big supporter of berry Sataro a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama. Perhaps next time people will research Something before they blindly support it like Sheepole.
If my gun rights are not welcome in the store, neither am I. I can find coffee elsewhere.
If you want me to come into a Starbacks unarmed, then Starbucks, the company, must be in a position to guarantee my safety. Starbucks, are you willing to do that?
I can read it now, mass shooting at Starbucks, no one to fend off the crazed shooter, 13 dead. If only someone was there to stop the mad man from this horror. Carry concealed into Starbucks and they cannot tell you anything if you are licensed to carry concealed. in fact, if you believe in our 2nd Amendment, boycott Starbucks.
This is from the most Liberal City of Seattle. Yes, Howard Schultz, ban guns, but please have a security check before people enter your Starbucks stores. It cannot be fool proof unless all people go thru a metal detector.
That is the only way that a gun free environment can exist.
ridiculous. I’m sure all the criminals and mass murderers will leave their guns home if they want to enter a Starbucks.
I hate to tell you, but the only places that can legally “ban” guns on their premises are federal, state, and local governments. Any restaurant, bar, store, etc, that is a public business that says “we ban guns” is merely reserving the right to ask you to leave if they find you are carrying a gun. They can’t stop you from carrying a gun in, but if they ask you leave you are required by law to leave. So don’t think just because the sign says “we ban guns” that you’re not sitting next to someone like me who is still carrying legally. Oh, and you’re welcome. It’s someone like me that’s going to save your @ss when the next psycho walks through the door with gun intending to cause mayhem.
take your liberal retarded bs and peddle it somewhere else. If you want to bitch about freedom, what would you say if a coffee shop said they were going to ban openly gay people from coming in? Oh I’m sure your pretty pink panties would get all bunched up, like a “rock”….I know..I’m being a butthead, but at least I have a point, freedom of speech baby…this is still America. uuuhhhhh huh huh huh
Put up your signs Starbucks. Gun Free Zone, enter at your own risk
Instead of having a backbone this guy is waffling on the right to protect yourself if a mass shooter decides to target Starbucks. I guess you could throw your iPad at him but that will probably only **** him off. Better to have a gun and not need it that to need it and not have one.
I’ll respect his wishes by never patronizing Starbucks again. He’s a mouthy activist busybody like the Hollywood types - going WAY beyond his sphere of influence to agitate - to the detriment of shareholders.
I’m guessing it’s alright if untreated mentally ill customers come and buy your coffee though, right? I’ve had my last cup of Starbucks coffee.
Citizens with carry and conceal permits don’t go on shooting rampages, they stop them. The moronic Newtown folks who got this ball rolling can only wish one of the teachers there was armed.
Twitter has been busy with response as well:
— Daily Intelligencer (@intelligencer) September 18, 2013
— Alan Colmes (@AlanColmes) September 18, 2013
The attacks have even spread to a blog run by Starbucks itself.
DC has “gun control”.
Military bases have “gun control”.
VA Tech has “gun control”.
Most schools have “gun control”.
Notice a pattern? All those places are where mass murders have happened.
SBX is refusing service to the 80,000,000 or so law-abiding gun owners in the USA.
Not smart to turn away the best customers they could have.
I love how you didn’t mind us bringing our M9’s into the Starbucks at Camp Buehring. (Seriously, thanks for the coffee though.) It’s ok over there, but not stateside? Apparently, there are too many nervous Nellies here that are scared of a piece of steel that once protected their right to be ignorant and fearful.
At least someone has some brains here. You libs keep drinking the cool aide and enjoy having your rights taken away little by little. If Starbucks doesn’t like the second amendment then I can choose not to drink their coffee. Period.
Agree … But, since their CEO asked nicely, I won’t bring my concealed weapon near a Starbucks … or my money, or my loyalty, or my family. As a matter of fact, I’ll let my extended family know as well.
There are two key points in the actions of Starbucks that seem to be completely overlooked or completely ignored by so-called “gun rights” advocates.
1. The company is NOT actually banning anything. You can still bring guns to Starbucks, the CEO is simply stating he would prefer that you didn’t. He’s not outright saying “No one is permitted to enter Starbucks with a weapon ever again.”
2. The U.S. Constitution is meant to govern the interaction between the government of the United States and its people, NOT its people and private corporations. “Second amendment rights” do not exist in the case of a private business. If they don’t want any guns on their property, that is their call. It is not trampling over rights because no one has a right to carry a gun anywhere they want to, despite what the gun nuts would have you believe.
You might notice I didn’t even mention the “good guy with a gun” argument because that was pretty much repeated ad nauseam after the Newtown shootings and there seems little point in rehashing it yet again.
Once again, this demonstrates how ignorant many self labeled “gun fanatics” are when it comes to gun regulations and how the Constitution works.
Hey, did you know that Obama didn’t beat Romney because he ran a much better campaign, or because Romney was a lousy candidate, or because of the shifting demographics of the nation, or because Republican policies are way more unpopular than anyone on the right can bear to admit?
No, Obama won because he cheated!
Thanks to Stewart Baker over at the Volokh Conspiracy (which is normally not quite this batshit crazy), the claim is now being made that the Obama campaign’s high-tech doohickeys and GOTV efforts broke the law (specifically the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the same thing Aaron Swartz was prosecuted under) by violating Facebook’s Terms of Service, and that the only reason the DoJ didn’t go after them for this criminal conspiracy is, well, I’ll let Baker explain it:
The Obama campaign doesn’t seem to have been deterred by the possibility that it was violating federal law. I can think of at least four reasons why that might be. Three of them are scandals.
Maybe the campaign never thought about the possibility that it was violating federal law. That’s not a scandal, though it strikes me as unlikely that not one of these tech-savvy geeks failed to notice that they were breaching Facebook’s terms of service.
The other possibilities are all much more troubling. Perhaps the campaign, or some official in the administration, checked quietly with Justice and got an assurance that its prosecutors would not inconvenience the campaign. Or perhaps the campaign thought about the risk and said, “Pff! Those guys work for us. They’ll never prosecute, especially if we win.” Or perhaps the Obama campaign went to Facebook and got a quiet waiver of the terms of service.
Of course, Baker’s assumption that the law was broken in the first place is based on a laughably ignorant understanding of Facebook’s ToS and how the internet works. His ridiculous theory gets justifiably torn apart in the comments section of his post, as people point out that if the Obama campaign broke the law so is the very Disqus commenting system the Volokh Conspiracy uses, but something tells me that won’t stop the usual suspects from jumping on this bandwagon…
UPDATE: the original, very silly blog post Baker cites as his ‘authority’, which was originally down when I posted the Page, can be found here.
UPDATE #2: there have now been two other posts about this non-issue over at VC, by Profs. Ilya Somin and Orin Kerr, and both of them take it as a given that the Obama campaign broke the law. The first says yeah, sure, Obama’s guilty, but that’s not why Romney lost, and the second says that the original blog post Baker cited was attempting a reductio ad absurdum on the DoJ’s interpretation of the CFAA, and that while the Obama campaign was guilty so is everybody else. Neither of them make more than a backhanded reference to the incontrovertible fact that the Facebook ToS was not violated, and that no law - under anybody’s interpretation of the CFAA - was broken.
Across the nation, not just in Washington, there are ever more signs of a Republican Party veering to the right edge of the right wing of the political spectrum. With prospects for a comprehensive immigration bill fading, what will it take to bring the GOP back at least to the right edge of the center of the spectrum, to compete to win national elections on its own merits and not just when the Democrats fail or the economy falters?
American history has many examples of a party going off the rails and taking a long time to recover. It was true of the Democrats in the 1890s and again in the 1960s and early ’70s. One rough rule of thumb is that a party has to lose three presidential elections in a row to make it clear that the problem is not just individual presidential candidates and their failures but something deeper, enough to motivate a party to move to expand beyond its ideological base and capture the center. But if that happens in 2016 — if Democrats make it three wins in a row — I am not sure it will be enough for the GOP.
That is because I see at least five Republican parties out there, with a lot of overlap, but with enough distinct differences that the task is harder than usual. There is a House party, a Senate party, and a presidential party, of course. But there is also a Southern party and a non-Southern one. The two driving forces dominating today’s GOP are the House party and the Southern one — and they will not be moved or shaped by another presidential loss. If anything, they might double down on their worldviews and strategies.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe this week, Sen. Manchin (D-WV) fired a salvo in his escalating war with the NRA - or, as he tells it, the NRA’s Washington leadership.
Responding to an NRA attack ad that claimed he was ‘working with President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’ and betraying his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by pushing forward with the now-defeated Manchin-Toomey bill that would have strengthened background checks on gun purchases, Manchin said “They’re trying to say I’ve changed, but I haven’t changed… the leadership of the NRA in Washington has changed. In 1999, background checks were good!”
It’s notable not just that Manchin seems sincere about enacting background checks in the wake of Newtown, but that he’s willing to fight back against the NRA in doing so. The NRA’s attack ad tells its members to phone Manchin’s office and complain about his “betrayal”; Manchin turns the tables in his ad, and asks NRA members to phone the NRA and complain about their lack of support for background checks.
Manchin is, above all else, a shrewd politician. He’s a Democrat who has managed to win by large margins, first as governor and then as senator, in an increasingly red West Virginia. If he’s made the calculation to call the NRA’s bluff and dare them to come after him, then he’s decided that they’re nothing more than a paper tiger at this point, full of bluster about their ability to bring down politicians who don’t follow their increasingly retrograde orthodoxy but without any ability to follow through. If Manchin demonstrates that he can spit in the teeth of the NRA and not suffer any damage, it may well embolden other, more timid Democrats who think they need to maintain an A-rating in order to keep their jobs.
It helps that Manchin isn’t facing re-election for a few years yet, of course. It’s easier to be brave when you aren’t in the heat of a campaign. But this election cycle could end up being the swan song for Wayne LaPierre’s brand of crazy as a truly scary political force. Between Bloomberg’s Independence USA super PAC hammering Democrats who tow the NRA line, and Manchin attempting to prove that there are no real consequences for defying them, the NRA may suddenly find that they can’t make Congress dance to their tune the way they used to.
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But if there’s going to be real movement towards a better, saner gun policy in this country it’s clearly going to have to happen over the NRA’s grave. Manchin’s an experienced hunter, but this is the most important hunt he’s ever been on. I wish him nothing but luck with this one.
Rumor: Glenn Beck; NSA Used to Blackmail Chief Justice Roberts for Obamacare?
Before Its News has an anonymous source who has provided this information on the scandal Glenn Beck promises to reveal on Thursday, June 13, 2013.
Here’s the GLENN BECK scandal that he will reveal within 24 hours…
It will be announced that hacked emails were used to blackmail and extort Chief Justice Roberts. Very embarrassing emails were obtained, and he was told to vote to declare Obamacare constitutional, or his family life would be destroyed.PREPARE.
Of course, one should consider the source. BeforeItsNews is the kind of site you frequent for one of 3 reasons…
- Alex Jones is too nuanced and leftist for you
- You are totally off your medications
- You just want more entertainment than "The Onion" can provide
It’s a site dedicated to the very worst the dregs of the right wing / anti-Jewish / anti-Muslim population out there. Many of the comments wouldn’t be out of place on Stormfront or V-dare.
Of course the whole “Roberts was blackmailed” meme has been accepted as gospel for a long time over on GriftRepublic.
Who is going to enjoy Chicken with yogurt and an Indian spice mix.