" Jenna Bush should just go back to being a drunken slut "

What the hell does Jenna Bush have to do with this story about Starbucks ??

“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 Tuesday.

This is the setup.

Starbucks will grab the credit for compassion, then flip around in a few weeks and say that, due to rampant abuse of their facilities and staff and hygiene, they just have to cancel the policy to protect the public. And everyone will applaud again.

What a sham. It was all pre-planned virtue-signaling.

This is a good basis on which to judge people. I think I will make it a central feature of our employment questionnaire. It's a good litmus test for what sort of person someone is, how they answer it. Those who answer it right are the sort of people I want to work with. Those who answer it wrong should find employment elsewhere.

If people gotta go, let them go

If I am traveling, I often go into a BK or McDonalds bathroom, many times without buying anything. However, I am in and out, don't make a mess or scene, and go pretty much unnoticed.

Do you really think these folks will act the same way?

What the hell does Jenna Bush have to do with this story about Starbucks ??

Did you read this? She was a panelist on the show.

Do you really think these folks will act the same way?

Yeah, because they do it all the time all over the place. All this does is remove the tension when some local manager or barista gets a burr up his ass and decides to get bitchy. If somebody is actually disturbing the peace, the cops can always be called.

Yeah, because they do it all the time all over the place.

I've seen many times when they do not.

I agree with Jenna Bush and Starbucks. If people gotta go, let them go and don't be petty moralistic little jerks about it.

It pains me to say it,but I have to agree. In some states businesses that sell food and drink are REQUIRED by local laws to provide public restrooms.

I disagree with forcing businesses to allow street people in,though. They have a business to run,and regular paying customers won't come in if they start seeing human waste in the floor of the rest rooms,abandoned needles,etc,etc,etc.

It really isn't asking too much to require people to at least buy a small coffee,soda,or cup of water for a buck or so in order to be allowed access to the rest room. If ya gotta go,a dollar or so is cheap,especially when you get a drink of some sort to go along with it.

Beyond that,it is the responsibility of the city to provide restroom facilities for the homeless by either just putting porta johns on the streets,or picking them up and putting them to work sweeping streets and picking up trash for 30 days each time they are caught.

Businesses and paying customers have rights,too.

Yeah, because they do it all the time all over the place.

I've seen many times when they do not.

I'm agreeing with no gnu taxes on this one.

Each business owner should be able to pick and choose who he wants to all use of his facilities,and who he wants to charge to use them. Nothing in life is free,and that include the water,electricity,and the employee who services the rest rooms.

If ya gotta go,a dollar or so is cheap,especially when you get a drink of some sort to go along with it.

Hi petey,

It doesn't happen often, but I had to go on my way to a friend's home for a brief visit today. I stopped in a Dairy Queen I go to often. I was greeted at the door as I walked in and headed to the head directly. I said hello back. I had a shake and burger from Burger King in my car. I did my bidness and headed back out the door.

End of story. I wasn't hanging out, I had to go. I didn't buy anything and didn't feel obligated to.

Businesses and paying customers have rights,too.

I was never talking about "rights".

End of story. I wasn't hanging out, I had to go. I didn't buy anything and didn't feel obligated to.

I do the same thing often,but if I were to be told the restrooms are for paying customers only,I would have no problem buying a cup of coffee or a soda so I would qualify.

No big deal.

I don't care if you look like Grizzly Adams and smell like a wet mule, you probably won't be hassled if you come in quickly and leave quickly and don't cause problems.

The problem is that many of these folks stick around and loudly harass customers to extort money to leave them alone. If I owned a business I wouldn't want them around.

Starbucks is a snooty upscale business. They really DON'T want these people to come into their store at all, while pretending to care about them.

I don't care if you look like Grizzly Adams and smell like a wet mule, you probably won't be hassled if you come in quickly and leave quickly and don't cause problems.

The problem is that many of these folks stick around and loudly harass customers to extort money to leave them alone.

The problem is that description fits almost all of them. If someone comes into a store that matches your description,you can bet money that he or she is long-time homeless,mentally ill,and almost always addicted to alcohol or some other drug.

The mistake was made years ago when brain dead leftist farts had the insane asylums shut down and released all the patients to roam the streets confused and incapable of taking care of themselves.

Yeah,I do have sympathy for those people. Nobody is that way because they want to be that way. The thing is it is NOT the business of anyone BUT government and/or government supported charities like religious organizations to support and provide for them. Most small business owners are too busy working 18 hour days to keep their business going to have to also take on providing care and facilities for nutcases the government set free.

The mistake was made years ago when brain dead leftist farts had the insane asylums shut down and released all the patients to roam the streets confused and incapable of taking care of themselves.

If I'm not mistaken, it was actually Reagan who endorsed that policy.

The mistake was made years ago when brain dead leftist farts had the insane asylums shut down

Reagan was the one who cut the funding for those and shut them down.

The thing is it is NOT the business of anyone BUT government and/or government supported charities like religious organizations to support and provide for them.

Religious charities have had the ability to do it now for 40 years, since Reagan closed the asylums.

In America, they are vastly well-funded - hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for not-for-profits.

They don't do it. The homeless and shambling mounds are still out there. RIGHT NOW the religious charities have the wealth to do it, and the desperate they could do it to. But THEY DON'T DO IT.

And THAT is why welfare and basic health care and education must primarily be done by government, through redistributive taxation. Because the religious charities WILL NOT DO IT. They NEVER did it. Sure, they did, and still do, SOME of it. But most of it was not done. It was welfare and Medicaid and Social Security and Unemployment and disability that lifted MOST people out of the grinding poverty of the grindingly poor back when it was more widespread.

The only reason there is so much less of it now than there used to be is BECAUSE the government took on the responsibility of providing for the basic security and health of its people. Then things got better.

When the hospitals were closed in the Reagan era, the government stepped BACK from its duty in this regard, saved money, and the problem of mental illness and crazies walking around exploded. And religion and private charity DID NOT step in with all of that private money released by the lower taxes and fill the gap. They did SOME help, but there was still, and is still, a big delta between the amount of care that existed when the government did it, and what happened since the government stopped doing it.

It's the perfect example of why a heavy, expensive, comprehensive government social safety net is necessary, which is expensive, and therefore progressive taxation that is a lot higher than people want to pay is required, especially if we're ALSO going to maintain a huge military.

You're right - the government should be doing this. But it's not the LEFT that fights you on this, at all. It's the Right. THEY are the ones who make the ridiculous counterfactual claim that religion and private charity CAN, and WILL, take up the slack. It COULD - that part is true - BUT IT WON'T. It has had the golden opportunity to DO EXACTLY THAT, with the crazies, since Reagan. AND IT HAS NOT DONE IT.

It never will, either. Christians are just not THAT Christian. Give until it hurts a little - ok. But actually taking care of the problems and doing it right requires, comprehensively, about 33% of the economy, and people will not give that much voluntarily.

So, you either do it, which means taxation - at gunpoint - and FORCE people to give a lot more than they want to, in order to pay for the social services and military we need. Or you DON'T do it, and live in a third world shithole.

We have chosen to do the former, and we were right to do so.

Folks on the Right keep trying to unravel it, and they keep being stopped, because we already know what will happen if the government steps away from the social safety net. We can SEE what happen when we stepped away from government asylums: lunatics everywhere. And no, the religion and private charity did not pick up the slack. They didn't even pick up a THIRD of the slack. Instead, lunatics still roam the street, and die out there, and do all sorts of crazy crap, and we toughen up and walk by.

I myself have made appeals TO Christians BASED ON Christianity. Done it right here. And you've seen the way that Christians attack in reply. It is asking too much of people to VOLUNTARILY give up enough to provide a decent social safety net and defense. That's why it has to be done by government, which has the power to tax. There is no other way to do it, and you're right that it has to be done.

If I'm not mistaken, it was actually Reagan who endorsed that policy.

So what? He probably had no choice but to sign off on it,and I can guarantee you it was the left that pushed it as one more tool in their toolbox to destroy America.

Reagan was the one who cut the funding for those and shut them down.

Nice try,but most of them were state institutions,not federal.

You're right - the government should be doing this. But it's not the LEFT that fights you on this, at all. It's the Right.

You CLEARLY misunderstood what I was saying. It was the LEFT that wanted the asylums shut down so the insane would be walking the streets to further damage tranquility in America,as well as to create a situation where new leftist "charities" could flourish and scam hundreds of millions of dollars from the US Treasury to "provide fo de po". The very SAME people they MADE poor by dumping them out on the streets.

If someone comes into a store that matches your description,you can bet money that he or she is long-time homeless,mentally ill,and almost always addicted to alcohol or some other drug.

Well, in the olden days, the cops would use a "thundering velvet hand" (from Dan Fogleberg) to gently guide him into a more acceptable area.