Image 01 Image 03

Starbucks’ Virtue Signaling Gets the Meme Treatment it Deserves

Starbucks’ Virtue Signaling Gets the Meme Treatment it Deserves

Black Lives Matter activist made famous, but probably not in the way he hoped

Two black men were arrested at a Starbucks Coffee store in Philadelphia last week after getting a call from a store manager. The men arrested attempted to use the store’s bathrooms without purchasing anything and then refused to leave. They were reportedly meeting with a real estate investor.

Whether she was fired or politely asked to resign, Starbucks won’t say, but reports indicate the store manager who called the cops is no longer working for the company.

Starbucks CEO was “sick to his stomach”, “embarrassed”, and “ashamed” over what happened. So, on May 29, Starbucks will close all corporate stores and offices to hold racial sensitivity training.

Sayeth Schultz:

“I’m embarrassed, ashamed. I think what occurred was reprehensible at every single level. I think I take it very personally as everyone in our company does and we’re committed to making it right. The announcement we made yesterday about closing our stores, 8,000 stores closed, to do significant training with our people is just the beginning of what we will do to transform the way we do business and educate our people on unconscious bias,” Schultz said.

“It will cost millions of dollars, but I’ve always viewed this and things like this as not an expense, but an investment in our people and our company. And we’re better than this,” he said of the company’s plan to close on May 29.

It’s gonna cost him so much money, you guys. But Starbucks is hyper socially responsible so it’s totally worth the millions they’re flushing down the tubes to prove to everyone they’re super not racist.

Black Lives Matter targeted the store where the two men were arrested and is calling for a boycott. A picture of Asa Khalif, a BLM activist, holding a bullhorn during a protest Sunday has made its way into internet meme lore in the best of ways.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Remarkable how this site passed on commenting about the Gorsuch ruling. I was hoping to see some interpretation so I can only guess that it’s 10 times worse than I thought.

    Milhouse in reply to jack burns. | April 19, 2018 at 2:24 am

    It was almost certainly exactly the same ruling Scalia would have made. Note that the leftist justices wanted to limit this to deportation cases, but Gorsuch said no, the constitution is the same for all cases, and destroying someone’s business is just as bad as deporting him; you can’t do either without giving the person any notice that he was risking such a thing.

    mailman in reply to jack burns. | April 19, 2018 at 4:10 am


    Grouch: Congress, tighten your legislative wording up.

    Congress: Hey Senate, have a look at this legislation we have just tightened up.

    Senate: hey Trump, one for you to sign.

    Trump: holds signing ceremony.


    JusticeDelivered in reply to jack burns. | April 20, 2018 at 2:31 pm

    I have been pleasantly surprised that Trump has not only tried to keep campaign promises, but also used alternative means of accomplishing them. He will no doubt continue to do the same. I very much approve of his stance on illegals.

    Perhaps the next step could be to declare war on Mexico, who has been profiting handsomely from people sending money back to Mexico to the tune of $69 billion dollars and growing each year? Then we could round up all Mexico’s operatives, try them as spies, then start executing them.

    One way or another, we could save a great deal of money by giving them a strong incentive to get the hell out of America.

    Make no mistake, it is an invasion which will lead to them conquering America.

“They were reportedly meeting with a real estate investor.” In the bathroom??

    But, was it a regularly scheduled meeting?

    Albigensian in reply to Whitewall. | April 18, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    Their story is that they were waiting for this third party to show up, and while waiting they tried to use the bathroom.

    Starbucks is in a strange place here, as it’s well known that one can buy their least expensive drink and nurse it all afternoon while using the WiFi and space at a table. Whareas many businesses would ask you to move on after awhile if you tried this, at least if they were busy.

    Presumably they draw the line at using the WiFi and space without buying anything, yet Starbucks business model is based on customers using their premises as a “third place” (not home or work) for meeting, socializing, and even solitary working.

    So, people can be expected to sometimes come in and wait for others, and Starbucks itself has created an ambiguous line between freeloading and legitimate use.

    Although if I were in a business and was asked to leave, I’d do so since, although it may be a public accommodation, it remains private property.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Albigensian. | April 18, 2018 at 8:29 pm

      Perhaps if they had just explained that they were waiting on someone before being provocative asshats then this wouldn’t have happened.

      Oh and many businesses have a model of you must be a paying customer to use the facilities.

    MarkS in reply to Whitewall. | April 18, 2018 at 6:35 pm

    Hey, it’s Philadelphia!

    Connivin Caniff in reply to Whitewall. | April 18, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    You are being way too judgmental. These victims are entitled to reparations of free coffee, but it has to be Starbucks and, obviously, they must only drink it black.

Thx for watching twitter so I don’t have to. Burge is the only thing I’m missing.

    Patrick Bateman in reply to Andy. | April 18, 2018 at 4:07 pm

    Indeed. I found that Twitchy is an excellent site to get some good laughs from Twitter without having to actually go there.

I read somewhere that the disgraced manager is an uber-radical, feminist, pronoun-enforcing SJW, so this is another instance of liberals eating one of their own. They are totally out of control.
Sit back. Relax. Enjoy the show.

If the clerk so much as sneaze the CEO of a multi million dollar business will fire him. That man should be paid a frk’n bonus for suffering such unwarranted abuse. A bullhorn in the face? Good gawd. He should be feted for such restraint.

Venti sized Mau Mau racebating at it’s finest.

Something vital is missing from this story.

The only times I’ve ever been in a Starbucks is for some kind of meeting—either business or personal. I don’t even drink the damn coffee. Hate the stuff. So why meet someone at Starbucks? It’s easy to find, everybody knows where it is, there’s decent parking, it’s open most of the time, and nobody’s going to throw you all out because they’re not all that cramped for space and you might buy something, which is all a successful business really needs.

And I’m not the only one on the planet who does this. In principle, Starbucks encourages this. It’s the rationale behind stuff like the wi-fi and the handy electrical outlets. Unlike, say, McDonalds, the Starbucks business model does not depend on moving the maximum number of customers through in the minimum time. Customers—and non-customers—are encouraged to stay. Call it “loiter” if you wish, the dance moves are the same.

So … what was distinctive about these two gentlemen which motivated their forcible removal? Apparently, nobody wants to say.

There is some information not included in the original article that blew up the internet.
-How long had the two men been seated at the Starbucks, waiting on a friend/investment business man/woman?
-What is the corporate policy for being at a table yet not eating nor drinking, and for how long? Same for bathroom privileges.

I used to get pissed when i’d go into a Panera Break wanting to eat with my family (yes, I have since learned that they just reheat everything), and all the seats were occupied by students studying and using the free wifi. A manager would refuse to ask a student to leave or order something.

When I was in grad school, and would go with a class mate to a Denny’s to study, we understood the concept of “booth rental”.

YellowGrifterInChief | April 18, 2018 at 3:53 pm

You read it somewhere? That is about the right amount of evidence to convince a conservative of anything.

I’m in coffee shops, restaurants almost every day. And I almost always buy something (95+% of time), especially if I know that they keep their bathrooms clean. Conversely, used to be in a public law enforcement/security role and our department was routinely called for the red/yellow/black/white transients who wanted to just sit without buying anything. It’s been their policy for a long time and, their employees were very reserved in making that call to our department or the police. S’Bucks CEO is being a caving dipshit, especially if she has been fired or quietly removed. If it’s a standalone building and especially a franchise, when you use their space and dont buy something, you are hurting a small business.

    blah deblah in reply to stl. | April 18, 2018 at 11:17 pm

    But isn’t it cool that Starbux makes it possible for you you to surf the ‘net while drinking a fair-trade latte that costs more than the average worker who assembled your Macbook makes in a day?

Can’t this be considered loitering? What if 100 protestors entered an establishment, sat down, with no intention of buying anything? How could any business survive? Shultz caved … because the loiterers were black. You know it’s true!!! Now go ahead … call me racist. This would never have made the news if the cops were called on non-purchasing white guys. Of course, if the cops were called on two non-purchasing LBQT [or whatever that term is] … that too would have made the news.

DieJustAsHappy | April 18, 2018 at 4:38 pm

If they had to use the restroom so badly, then, pray tell, when did they get to do so? Did the police insist that they be allowed to use the store’s? Or, were the men allowed to use one at the police station, before or after booking? All this pertains to the matter of just how urgently they need to use the one in Starbucks. Or, was this a set up from the get-go?!

This happened while I was in Manhattan. What the Pro-Choice Church, with its liberal and progressive sects is saying, is that human lives matter, selectively, opportunistically, with political leverage.

BLM = Baby Lives Matter

The social justice activists Occupy the cafe and assault the employees. Bad optics.

What people are missing is that these men were not arrested for loitering. They were asked to leave the coffee shop and refused. when the police arrived, I’m sure that they were asked, again to leave the restaurant. They went all SJW and refused. So, the manager told the police to remove them and she would proffer charges. I’m sorry, but if you do not leave, when asked, and get arrested, tough luck. They got what they asked for, they should be happy.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Mac45. | April 18, 2018 at 8:35 pm

    Exactly! All of this; “how long were they there?” and other crap is BS. They were asked to leave private property and refused, at that moment they were trespassing and opened themselves to arrest.

      murkyv in reply to Gremlin1974. | April 18, 2018 at 8:44 pm

      Sounds like the same procedure they would use for someone who was carrying a firearm in a gun-free establishment.

      Po-Po won’t be involved if one just leaves when asked to.

    murkyv in reply to Mac45. | April 18, 2018 at 8:49 pm

    According to the police chief, they were offered a chance to leave 3 times by the officers before they were arrested.

    This is just another example of the Racial Grievance industry using a lie to justify their existence.

    The entire BLM movement is based on the lies Trayvon was gunned down by a wannabe cop for no reason, The Gentle Giant was only minding his own business when killed by a cop for jay-walking, and Freddie dindu nuffin wrong to get tossed in that paddy wagon.

Just another fake race hustle by the commies.

Melissa DePino filmed the arrest in an eight-minute video, and before long, BLM activists were blocking the entrance to the establishment.
DePino is a young, white, well connected activist-writer lecturing Americans on their privileged skin color. Funny that DePino’s name has been published in every article about the incident but not the names of the two men arrested.
At the halfway mark in the video, a 30-something white man appears, asking the police what is going on. Turns out he is the person the pair was set to meet at Starbucks. The man, Andrew Yaffe, a local real estate developer, can be heard defending the pair, saying, “This is absolute discrimination.”

Yaffe’s timing was picture-perfect. He didn’t show up until after the police arrived and after DePino had begun filming her video. What happened before the police arrived and how long the two men had been in Starbucks without ordering anything have not been determined.

Starbucks new slogan: Let’s make a dope deal.

If only that manger would have engaged the 2 fellows in a “conversation on race” or “climate change’ this could have all been averted

*sarc* But, I thought that activists never lie. They never fake anything to promote their cause. They are all righeous individuals who would never intentionally break the law to promote their cause, or their pocketbooks. Weren’t we just treated to a week of everyone saying that the rebel activists in Syria, many of whom are known terrorists, would never lie about a chemical weapon attack? Heck, the POTUS just dropped 105 cruise missiles, worth approximately $200 million + on the Syrian government, on three sites which were inspected by international chemical weapons inspectors within the last six months, because such people NEVER lie.

I’m sure that these two men at Starbucks are the victim’s of blatant racial discrimination. */sarc*

Everything that’s wrong with both species, in one succinct snap.

I’d like to know this: If a disruptive person or people went into the oakland coffee shop that refused to serve police officers (haste muerte), would the manager call the police to have them removed? Example: What if the person or people were larpers or demonstration participants dressed ironically as SS soldiers and the other customers complained? Would the aclu get involved and if so on who’s side?

There’s nothing wrong with using Starbucks as a meeting space, or even using the euphemism, everyone does it all the time. But when the manager asks you to buy something or leave, you buy something or leave. It doesn’t matter why the manager asked this of you and not anyone else. Yes, maybe it’s because you’re black, or wearing a MAGA hat, or some other stupid prejudice; your permission to use the space without paying is a courtesy, and a courtesy can always be withdrawn. If you suspect discrimination, complain to the company; they will surely take action. But first you leave peacefully. If it’s got to where they’re calling the cops, you’ve already way outstayed your welcome.

Unless there’s a blizzard outside or something, and going out would be dangerous; then you’re entitled to and impose on the property owner, because your safety is more important than the normal rules of civility.

Or unless you’ve got an actual contractual right to be there. I know people whom a hotel tried to evict for making too much noise. Thing was they had a contract that explicitly authorized this. The cops took one look at the contract and left.

I would ask why they didn’t just buy a coffee, but I’ve had the misfortune of having tasted their coffee.

there is so much wrong with this, and it’s not the Starbucks fault. how bad would it have been to spend a couple of buck to buy a coffee or something else. when I have to use the rest room at convenience store/gas station I try to by something.

Why would you spend money on something you feel entitled to?

>>Although if I were in a business and was asked to leave, I’d do so since, although it may be a public accommodation, it remains private property. <<

To me, this is the dangerous trend. Private property is now viewed as the property of the masses. One of the protestors even yelled out that they weren't allowed to lock the doors so he couldn't come inside to protest. Portland, OR, has a huge issue with the homeless taking up residence in Fourbux on rainy days, and BTW, rain does not make them smell better. Of course, the employees would be called to the carpet if they did anything. Right now, the bathroom code is stamped on the receipt, for ALL people, so no receipt, no code, and they still need to change the code every two hours.

Part of me sees this as a swatting situation, where two "non-patrons" instigated a confrontation, and the real-estate investor was waiting in the wings for the po-leece to arrive. What really confuses me is how these arranged confrontations are not being treated as RICO crimes, because in essence, they are. I bet if BLM and similar organizations felt someones hand in THEIR pocket, this might come to an end right-quick.

What we are now seeing more frequently in PDX are signs on the door saying that they reserve the right to refuse service for any reason. And shoplifting is so bad that a manager of a chain grocery store told me that they were considering a membership plan to exclude thieves w/o appearing to discriminate. Employees are forbidden from asking to see a receipt even when a person walks over to a table and starts eating an item that was just taken off a shelf or ordered from the deli. Just insane, and the honest people are paying for it. Of course, the disenfranchised then complain that a large chain recently closed the store in their neighborhood because shoplifting has reached double-digit% of store sales. Du UH!

For some reason all of this reminds me of the YouTube about unicorns going to Candy Mountain. It ends with one unicorn missing his kidneys.