Unlike Peet's Coffee & Tea and Whole Foods, Schultz isn't refusing service to armed patrons, but in deference to those brainwashed unarmed patrons who might be intimidated by the appearance of firearms in their midst, Schultz asserts that he "prefers" that armed patrons not seek service at Starbucks establishments.
Ok. On the surface, this seems harmless enough. Right?
Well, not really.
No matter how one cuts, dices or spins it, what this gratuitous and discriminatory policy really means is that at Starbucks establishments law-abiding folks with licensed firearms are, in effect, persona non grata. Oh, they'll serve you okay. But, you're really not welcome. You're a gun-toter. Ouch.
Obviously, this policy exposes Starbuck's opinion regarding the sanctity of our 2nd Amendment constitutional rights. To all but the mentally impaired, Schultz's message is abundantly clear: while Starbucks won't refuse service to you, armed persons are a no-no, a threat, fearsome, and something to be stigmatized.
For me, the nub of the issue is this: abetted by a cynical and seductive Progressive policy to eliminate Americans' right to keep and bear arms, an odious anti-gun mindset is now gripping our country. And by its action, Starbucks is effectively buying into this insidious one-step-at-a-time Progressive goal of disarming Americans. Thus, in good conscience I cannot--will not--patronize Starbucks, for by doing so I too would be endorsing and encouraging this destructive anti-gun mindset.
