Quote:
Originally Posted by petasux
[QUOTEReally? Yeah, it is weird that our right to not go to a store, trumps the owners right to allow people in? People can choose where they buy their coffee. Some would rather buy coffee at a different store because the original store does not the same values. It is a free country. Starbucks is putting the customer first, while still expressing their rights. The right to serve, or not to serve. Kind of like the right to carry, or the right to not carry. ]
|
No actually what your talking about is a personal choice not to shop somewhere.What Im talking about is a boycott.When you make a choice to not shop there personally it affects nobody else.
*****Participating in a boycott is still a personal thing. One can join the boycott or ignore it.
On the other hand a boycotts an organized thing, you try influence others to your way of thinking, and give the business bad publicity.You drag others in with you and in the process give people who dont care one way or another about gun owners something negative to form an opinion on.
*****What's wrong with trying to influence others to your way of thinking? Isn't that what you're doing by posting in this thread?
Fact of the matter is most business dont care either, but you having a loaded weapon in thier store adds up to a huge liability for them if something does happen.You think its reasonable to drag a business owner through the mud because he isnt willing to bet his livelyhood on a bunch of complete strangers with loaded firearms just because its "thier right" to carry them.
*****The fact that the law allows carrying a weapon would relieve the business of any personal liability.
It makes us look like a bunch of selfich whiners over what amounts to a minor inconvience.And these boycotts spring up in forums like this one all the time.
*****It's not really a matter of convenience. It's a matter of a Constitutional right. A property owner has the right to control behavior on his/her property. But, let's face it, banning guns for no practical reason is dissing our 2nd Amendment rights and us personally. A boycott is one way of expressing our objections.
Just to be clear Im not saying boycotts are all bad, there are some busines owners that are positively anti gun and dont try to hide it as they work at stripping away our rights, these are the ones that should be boycotted and thier views should be made very public.
*****I think boycotting a business that appeared to be anti-gun rights is what this thread is all about. (I'm surprised, by the way, at the number of people who are pro-2nd Amendment who wear Levis.)
But for the most part, the majority of them dont even want involved in this debate and if they are forced to choose they will choose whats in thier own best interest, and I dont blame them.
*****That's what Starbucks is doing, choosing what's in their best business interest. The people who organized the boycott were just helping to inform them of what is in their best interest, just providing some no cost business consulting for Starbucks.
[/quote]
No need to boycott wool We are definitely for the 2nd Amendment
Starbucks Allow Guns
