The law is absolutely on the side of whiteness.
The law, in almost all cases, prohibits discrimination and profiling. So, I think what you’re referring to is not the law, but the application of the law.
Which is an important distinction, because you cannot solve a problem unless you first understand it.
Certain public spaces are restrictedly off-limits if you have no capital, but if you are perceived to have no social capital or don’t plan to use any capital, then you are liable to become a victim of institutional bias and callousness.
So, you think that a white bum in filthy clothes and no money would have been welcomed into Starbucks on that fateful day?
If so, I’d think again.
Institutions continue to claim and are even reserving certain public spaces for the implicit privilege and use of those who are perceived to have the prerequisite racial etiquette.
I disagree; see comment on the filthy white bum above.
What data can you point to that is evidentiary for your opinion that public spaces are reserved based on race? Because without data, you’re simply presenting an opinion as if it were fact.
Emboldened by the audacity of Trumpism, it was always hidden in plain sight and observably explicit in discordance of equality and equity
Wait. You think that before Trump, nonpaying customers were welcomed into chainstore restrooms in trafficked, urban areas? Really?
Legally, no wrong-doing on the part of Starbucks, nor the police is evident.
Precisely. Because it’s OK (meaning, it’s legal) to restrict your restrooms for your paying customers and their guests. It’s also a good business practice, in most cases.
As a matter-of-fact the two men arrested and held captive for nearly nine hours, presumably at the precinct, where they were fingerprinted for booking, had no ethical nor legal basis, because there “wasn’t sufficient evidence to charge with a crime” as relayed by Benjamin Waxman, a spokesman for the office of the Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner.
BINGO. Here’s the actual problem. All over the nation, caffeine addicts are going into withdrawal because Starbucks has accepted blame for this issue and ishut their stores to conduct “racial sensitivity training”; and on top of it, fired the store manager for doing her job perfectly (which probably will result in a much more fruitful future for her, long term). When all the time, the people that hamhanded the situation were the cops, not Starbucks.
This thing should have gone down like this (a) store manager calls cops because noncustomers were trying to potty without paying, (b) cops show up, listen to both sides, take the pottiers (who by this time must have been squirming) outside, explain that (c ) Starbucks is within the rights to deny them the use of the facilities, and if they think it’s racial, then (d) complain to Starbucks or your local television station. That SHOULD have taken no more than an hour, even with police bullshit bureaucratic paperwork.
Why? Because its cultural
Sounds like cop stupidity to me. But at any rate, it’s not what you said above when you referenced “the law”.
The police commissioner, Richard Ross who is black, staunchly defended the actions of the officers because both men had not purchased anything, but had the nerve to ask to use the bathroom. A Starbucks policy, selectively adhered to in certain locations refused that basic human right….
Ah. So now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that all sanitary facilities in retail establishments (well, why not office buildings, too?) should actually be PUBLIC facilities, because……shitting in comfort is a “human right.”
Unfortunately, it’s not a “right”; it’s a privilege, if you haven’t contributed to the upkeep of the facility by purchasing something in the store in question.
Through the racialized lens of our institutions this is somehow the right of law enforcement.
I think we both agree that this turned into a situation that could have been avoided by a bit more diplomacy on the part of the police force. But if the men absolutely refused to leave, the cops were left with little choice but to remove them (although nine hours in the pokey still seems excessive by several multipliers.)
The commissioner also remarked that he was aware of issues of implicit bias but that it was not applicable to this incident. Implicit bias is a misnomer used flippantly, and has dubious quality of why such malevolent attitudes and behavior are often and conveniently conveyed. Since implicit bias delves into the realm of unconsciousness, it is unworthy of mention and characteristically inconclusive in attempting to support bias — especially racial bias.
I could not agree with you more on this issue. “Implicit bias”, since it cannot be objectively measured, is being used as a cudgel to beat these issues (and people) into the ground. Since it cannot be objectively measured, it cannot be successfully disproven as a factor, allowing the wielder of the cudgel to convict their victims without a trial.