My Take On This Starbucks Fiasco

I do not know if all the facts are in and just listening to Dennis Prager a few minutes ago.  I agree with a lot of what Dennis Prager said if not all.  But he caused me to think about some things, especially when using a bathroom when I am on the road. I frequent MacDonald's a lot so I don't feel guilty using their bathroom, but often on the road, I will still try to buy a drink or something if I need to use their restroom.  Dennis mentioned an old Jewish law about not asking the price of something in a store if you know you are not going to buy it. I must admit in my 60 plus years I have owned some 60 plus vehicles and even today if something catches my eye, I like to look at it.  I have no intention of buying, I just like to look. Its just me. But according to that law I should not ask the price if I have no intention of buying.  How this relates to Starbucks is they had every right as a store to not allow any one no matter what color or race to not use their bathroom if they were not a paying customer. The reason this is so important, have you ever been to a MacDonald's or other gas station / convenience store to use the bathroom and someone is actually taking a bath in the sink? Not literally taking a bath but cleaning up in place of a bath. It is not right, it is not the intended use of those bathrooms and it is unsanitary for paying customers. Sometimes they literally make a big mess. In areas where there are a lot of homeless people they end up locking the bathrooms and buzzing you in to avoid those type of problems. I saw just a day or two ago when a manager of a local Hardee's sent a homeless man on his way that was just standing near the bathrooms.  I had bought two sandwiches, one for me and one for Barbara who had not shown up yet. I felt he was watching me with those two sandwiches, it was a buy one get one free. I don't know if the manager saw that or not. I was just about to give it to him when the manager sent him packing. I agree with Dennis P. that is was not wrong for Starbucks to have this particular bathroom policy. I felt that this was a setup with the two black men in an effort to make the police look bad. If the Starbucks employee was in on this setup, then yes firing was the right thing to do. If not the Store should have backed them for following existing policy.  Even one of the police officers mentioned he had been refused the use of the bathroom another time when he had not bought anything.  I feel special consideration should be given to police officers who spend so much time in their cars and are public servants, they should be allowed to use services just about anywhere. Starbucks should have backed their employee unless they were involved in some sort of setup to make the police look bad by taking the two black men out of the store by force. They did not go on their own. Blacks should not be given special rights just because they are black. If this is store policy, it should be administered the same for everyone. This was not a mistreatment of two black men. It was police officers doing what we pay them for when a store called and asked to have two men removed from their store as the store in this case had a right to do. I believe this was planned to make the police look bad and nothing more.  We are not racist if we hold the same policies for everyone. Starbucks want to be politically correct over Store policy and that is where they went wrong.  This is my take on this Starbucks fiasco. God bless, LVZ.