We Understand They Also Welcome Customers Of Different Faiths

Starbucks has become the deserving target of protesters nationwide for behavior that can only be described as reckless, foolhardy and downright dangerous:

Complying fully with state and local laws.

That at least, is the position of gun control advocates who are pressuring Starbucks to turn away customers who insist on carrying firearms, whether concealed, or worse, unconcealed (under “open carry” laws), in a perfectly lawful manner.

According to the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (not to be confused with human violence which is of course an entirely different and unrelated matter), they want "espresso shots, not gunshots," and believe Starbucks’ decision to act in accordance with state and local laws “creates a potentially dangerous situation.”

Not an actually dangerous situation, such as, say, attempting to commit a criminal act against someone who is armed, but a potentially dangerous one.

You know what are some other potentially dangerous situations?

Driving a car.

Getting out of bed.

Staying in bed.

Drinking coffee.

We are outraged that Starbucks, to this day, and with complete and utter disregard for safety, refuses to deny service to customers who drive to their shops (decaf cappuccino, not decapitation!), who both get out of, and stay in, bed, and who drink coffee.

Leave it to a corporation to have no shame.

The Brady Campaign is not just worried about the potentially dangerous situation that following the law creates, but also the fact that carrying a firearm out in the open is “inherently threatening and intimidating.” 

For example:

You know what? We’re starting to see their point.

But who has the better overall argument? Let’s examine the home pages of the principal actors.  First, the Brady Campaign:

Now, lets take a look at OpenCarry.org:

Sure, demanding that a private business insert itself into a debate more properly argued and settled in the public sphere is compelling.

But so is an attractive woman packing heat.

But that might just be us.

Regardless, we fully support special-interest groups attempting to intimidate private businesses into making value judgments regarding behavior that is otherwise lawful.

Us? We think they should target mimes who willfully engage in the open display of invisible ropes and walls.

You’ve got your inherently threatening and intimidating issues, and we have ours.

J.