Megyn Kelly questions Starbucks’ new bathroom policy: Will draw ‘a mass of homeless people’ to cafes
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
NBC's Megyn Kelly on Tuesday questioned Starbucks' new policy that allows non-customers to sit in the stores and use its restrooms, saying that it could lead to a mass of homeless people occupying cafes.
Kelly shared the criticism as a panel on her show "Megyn Kelly Today" discussed Starbucks' anti-bias training that is taking place Tuesday in more than 8,000 stores across the country.
"There are places for the homeless," Kelly said. "In New York City they’re pretty good about providing churches for homeless to go and get meals and so on. There’s a question about whether a commercial establishment is that place. Do you really want to deal with a mass of homeless people or whoever is in there, they could be drug addicted, you don’t know."
The new Starbucks policy came in response to two African-American men being arrested after sitting in one of its stores in Philadelphia as they waited for a friend. Starbucks employees are now expected to view anyone who walks into its stores as a customer, “regardless of whether they make a purchase."
"One of the key pieces within the policy is the respectful request of customers to behave in a way that maintains a warm and welcoming environment," Starbucks said in a statement.
More than 175,000 employees are taking part in anti-bias training at Starbucks stores on Tuesday.
"Discussing racism and discrimination is not easy, and various people have helped us create a learning experience that we hope will be educational, participatory and make us a better company," CEO Howard Schultz wrote in an open letter. He added that the events that took place in the Philadelphia Starbucks store were reprehensible.
Kelly also called out Starbucks for the rapper Common's participation in the anti-bias training, charging that he has a history of homophobic lyrics and derogatory remarks about women.
"I’m just saying, if we’re going to hold up somebody as an example to teach on bias, maybe we should be sensitive to that person’s entire record," Kelly said.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
Question: Why did Starbucks do this to itself?
Answer may lie in the fact that Howard Schultz is a progressive who has placed his ideology over the welfare of his company. I thought for sure he would only make a slight tweak to Starbucks loitering policy. He could have simply sent the word discreetly down the line - managers shall only eject those who loiter, provided they are not black.
Have you been to your local library lately? Some of the regulars really reek and just sit there and watch the others with vacant stares. Others go into the restrooms to shoot up, and the staff has kindly provided a sharps disposal container so the needles won't litter the floor. That will happen to Starbucks too.
About 30 years ago I worked with a guy who had suffered a nervous breakdown. He was a brilliant man who once worked on some important things. You would never know it after his breakdown. He became homeless and ya, he used to tell us how he would sleep at the library.
Just curious, you say he used to tell you(all) that he slept at the library ? So he was still working with you(all) when he was homeless ?
Yup....He had a part time entry level position with us. A far cry from the type of employment he was used to.
The manager of the company we were with eventually made a deal with him. He was given use of the rest room overnight (it had a couch in the outer room). The deal was he could sleep there at night, had to keep himself and his clothes clean along with the restroom. In return he provided a little more work as compensation on what were once his days off.
They're really just scholars waiting for their study buddies to show up.
I know, right? It's shocking that the Starbucks CEO doesn't think it's a good idea to eject businessmen just because they were black folks who were waiting to meet a colleague.
Can't we go back to the good old days where black folks knew their place, or at least where the cops used dogs to put them in their place?
Is that why they were ejected?
What was Starbucks policy regarding loitering?
What did the manager of that Starbucks say about why she did it?
Why dosen't Starbucks only eject white people who loiter?
Yup, you seem to be stuck in that time & place
C'mon Tess, that's what a parrot does
Thousands of people took to social media to report that they 'hang out' at Starbucks using their WiFi all the time and have NEVER been asked to leave.
Is that proven? How? Because they said so? No one would ever lie about a thing like that, right?
Funny: most real businessmen I have encountered understand the concept of buying something if you're going to take up space in a business. You would think these self-described businessmen would actually have respect for the very common policies of the business where they are loitering. They might claim to be businessmen, but they behaved like entitled slackers.
You obviously never even watched the video of the event. The colleague of the two men showed up while they were being arrested.
You make a lot of ignorant assumptions. This one you just made happens to be wrong.
So what? What is that supposed to tell me? Did the three of them then proceed to try to buy coffee? Or did they still want to take up space without respecting the business?
Are we supposed to respect them more because they claim they were there to discuss business? Why? And if so, where is the proof that they were doing that as opposed to just being three guys hanging out together? For all we know, their "business" was a drug deal.
As I said you quite obviously never watched the video. Your statement is absolute proof of that fact.
I'm not surprised that you have problems with black folks who wait to meet a colleague before ordering.
Their blackness is irrelevant to me because I'm not racist. I'd kick out white people who were loitering, too. In a heartbeat!
You're totally focused on their skin color, which says more about you than anything else.
So apparently was the manager who has since been fired.
I hate all of this. Are we ever going to get back to normal?
Are you referring to 1950s Alabama or 1950s Maryland?
I believe she is referring to the 30 year period beginning with the 70's when we were all equal
She's speaking of the time when all white people were equal...
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
One failing of a society during a time period does not mean the whole thing was bad. Maybe try assuming that a person is remembering positive aspects that existed.
As long as you were a straight white Christian male the 1950s were great. No wonder our Glorious Leader is trying to return the US to that benighted era.
For many, yes. You are aware, I hope, that the country was over 80% white in those days. It's also about 96% straight.
But tell us: what other countries in the world were better for women, people of color, or homosexuals in the 1950s than America? America has never been perfect, but for a long time, it has been better - for most people - than any place else in the world. That's why it continually is the world's favorite destination for migrants.
For women and non-whites the USSR was far better than the US, but I don't know how many other countries purged gays from federal and state employment like the US did.
.
Actually you just made my point about Trump since he's regressed US immigration policy back to the 1950s.
The USSR? That's your better country?
First of all, let's not lose sight of the fact that pretty much EVERYONE living in the United States in the 20th century had it better than the general population of the Soviet Union. US citizens enjoyed little things like liberty, the right to own property, a presumption of innocence in criminal matters, the freedom to pursue their own career choices, leave the country if they so chose, and seek redress for wrongs in court. Access to those rights was certainly easier for some than others, but Soviet citizens enjoyed none of those things.
Set aside for the moment that the USSR was about 99.9% non-black. They invited some Africans to their country, but the first black man in Russian government (Jean Sagbo) didn't happen until 2010. Not an impressive record. The United States had black government representatives long before that.
Meanwhile the Soviets had plenty of their own minorities with lighter skin. Believe it or not, the various peoples of the Caucasus region, i.e. the Azerbaijanis, the Armenians, and the Georgians were called "black" in Russia and assumed to be criminals. As for East Asians, they evicted every single Korean from the country in the 30s. Problem solved early on.
Then there's the Jews. First of all, what's the first thing the Communists did with religion generally? Churches and Synagogues were shut down. Everywhere! Zero religious freedom. Entire communities were dissolved and people shipped off to different parts of the country. Whatever their official stated policy might have been, in practice the Soviet Union was one of the most antisemitic places on Earth.
Consider also the matter of so-called " rootless cosmopolitans " leading to the Doctors' Plot .
Stalin also criminalized homosexuality. The penalty was five years hard labor in prison. Thousands of people were imprisoned for being gay. That went on well into the 70s. Even in the late 80s, polls showed homosexuals were the most hated group in Russia.
Trump hasn't actually done that much for immigration policy. Constitutionally, he can't. All he has mainly done is to undo Obama's unconstitutional acts. He has said over and over again (just as Obama did) that Congress must act. And I point out again that in the 1950s, whatever else you want to say about the US, people still wanted to come here more than any place else.
Compare Bill Clinton on immigration to Donald Trump. What is so different?
Yep, and comparatively in that society both women and black folks had it far better than in the US where women were subject to coverture laws and very unequal job prospects, and blacks were subject to Jim Crow laws.
.
He's doing a great job separating children and infants from their parents.
I guess you'd like the kids to go to jail with their lawbreaking parents. Nice policy!
Either that, or you think we shouldn't ever jail women who break the law just because they claim to have children. Another nice policy!
There ya go ladies! A "get out of jail free" card. Just tell the cops you have kids, and they won't be allowed to arrest you.
If by normal you mean denying People human dignity because they can't afford overpriced coffee I hope not.
Have you seen the movie "The Help"? Didn't we all get past all those racist potty issues way back in the '60s?
I thought the men who were asked to leave for loitering were businessmen?
Have you seen the movie "The Help"? Didn't we all get past all those racist potty issues way back in the '60s?
No race baiting. Stick to the topic. Starbucks changer their policy on loitering - in effect they totally scrapped it. Is it wise?
Indubitably. I have no idea why some have their panties in a wad over sharing public toilet seats.
If a prissy bitch like Megan has a problem with Starbucks that is a flashback to Jim Crow racism...
People, even in canyons of NY, sometimes must go. Denying access to toilets is a cruel idea IMHO.
Aren't most of those white-ass slackers hanging out at Starbucks starring blindly at phones all day homeless?
Seriously, there are enough Starbucks and Starbucks bathrooms to go around. Clueless Kelly has not a clue...
Why don't they ask all the fast food restaurants, department stores, convenience stores, grocery stores how they handle their closed door bathroom policies? Could it be because they don't have those policies, and the cases of vagrants trashing the bathrooms is blown way out of reality?
I still haven't seen proof that race was the problem in Philadelphia. The training is just for show.
If you want to train the employees in something useful, train them in how to deal with the homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicted people of the world because they're going to be seeing a lot more of those people.
The prof is what Starbucks said about the incident and the fact that they fired the store manager because of it.
I'm not sure what it proves, but as far as the manager goes:
"According to Philly.com , the manager in question has left the company in what a company spokeswoman called a “mutual” decision."
or
In other words they sat down with him and, told him he leaves the company voluntarily or, they fire him.
It could mean that or there might even be a bit more. The company would pay out whatever this manager had coming via being vested etc, plus a settlement of some kind where she leaves on good terms and agrees never to discuss the incident with the media or anyone else. That to me would be the most beneficial end for Starbucks. That way there is no contradiction to the companies rapid conclusions of what happened.
From your Atlanta Black Star citation:
So in response to this incident the entire company is undergoing training about stereotypes and “unconscious bias”. Exactly what kind of “unconscious bias” do you think they're referring to? Perhaps the kind you're exhibiting here?
Yes, a company with the same mindset as you have.
Perhaps the kind you're exhibiting here?
Perhaps the kind you've exhibited in almost every discussion you've been involved in here.
So now you trust what corporations say. Welcome to the Republican Party.
Lol yeah, "mutual". The conversation went something like this "you are finished, you can leave on your own or we can just flat out fire you, your choice, but by next week you will no longer be working for this company."
I trust corporations to do what is best for their bottom line in every situation.
That is the truth. Not that that's always a bad thing.
Homeless people made the downtown library unusable as more and more homeless people drove away regular people and children. But the library runs on taxpayer money so as long as we pay taxes, the library stays open. Starbucks, however, is a business and customers will not pay to sit next to people who stink and/or are batshit crazy. I’d place this stupid idea under the hashtag “get woke, go broke.”
Starbucks is not going to go broke, they have lines out the ass at all hours of the day. If it does become an issue then they can simply adjust their policy as needed.
There is little sense in implementing so flawed a policy that it must be undone to avoid something so obvious. They’ll still have lines alright . . . of homeless people waiting for seats. But I don’t patronize Starbucks anyway so the whole thing is only worth a chuckle to me.
For some reason I don't think this is going to be much of a problem. If it somehow does become an issue then they will just change their policy and that is that.