Six uniformed police officers walked into a Tempe, Arizona Starbucks to get coffee before the start of their shifts on the 4th of July; a barista then told them they had to move to where customers couldn’t see them or they had to leave the coffee shop.
No, my friends, this isn’t the start of a stupid dad joke. This actually happened. Reportedly, a customer complained that they didn’t feel safe drinking a $5 cup of coffee in the same establishment as uniformed law enforcement officers. I mean, say what you will, but it is common knowledge that most instances of Cocoa Cloud Macchiato-fueled police violence occur in over-priced national coffee chains. So who wouldn’t feel threatened?
It didn’t take long before the story went viral, with the hashtag #DumpStarbucks beginning to trend on Twitter. For the most part, it seems that the people using this alleged call to boycott are actually celebrating the removal of these police officers from the specific Starbucks in question. Predictably, many of these tweets are referencing the case of the bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. However, what this false equivalency fails to note is that this case was over whether or not a business could choose whom to serve. The regressive left was outraged when they didn’t get their way that time; now, they’re upset that anyone would be upset that Starbucks did the same thing.
Here is the bottom line up front: both the bakers in question and Starbucks are absolutely acting within their constitutional rights to deny service; both examples are beautiful displays of freedom in action. However, so is the consumer’s freedom to choose what businesses they frequent. Mad that a baker won’t help celebrate your so-called marriage? Cool, don’t go there. Tell your friends. Think it is unconscionable to deny our uniformed public servants access to a Starbucks? Cool, don’t go there. Tell your friends. Well, don’t tell any friends that you know that are criminals that Starbucks has forbidden law enforcement from their premises. That would be just plain rude.
