Okay, I'm not about to climb under a sheet with a webcam to moan and cry (besides, I don't wear as much makeup as Christopher Crocker) but neverthestill:
It hit the papers today and there's one one logical reaction: Brady's, leave Starbuck's alone! Why are you trying to force -- one of your fave words when it comes to permitting citizens to exercise a civil right, innit? -- force Starbucks to pick a side, when the best-case outcome is that it will tick off half their customers?
Why lean on a chain of coffee joints to sign up on a side? Starbucks doesn't vote. Most of their stores are small; in states (49 of them, Paul Helmke, are y'skeeered?) with some provision for the carrying of loaded handguns by law-abiding citizens, it makes no sense for a store smaller than most living rooms to tell the guy or gal who is perfectly okay keeping and bearing arms on the sidewalk outside the store that they can't come in and pay high prices for a decent cuppa Joe; what's twenty feet closer to the cappunchino machine gonna do?
It's funny this just popped up today; after all, the dialogue has gone on for weeks. (Bradys: Waaah! Guns baaaad. Starbucks: Shaddup, you! We Sell Coffee. If a customer's not breakin' the law, we will sell 'em some.) Y'know why they are pushing it now? One word -- no, two: Otis McDonald.
See, it's lookin' pretty good for him and not so hot for Chicago's gun-banning ways. So they've got to raise a stink; and how better than by riding on the coattails (not to mention the rump) of a widespread and very popular coffee seller? Starbucks has beaucoup name-recognition, after all.
So far, the Brady ploy is backfiring. I fully support Starbucks desire and right to sit this mess out. It's not their fight; they're here to sell coffee to anyone who'll buy -- and why not?
Introduction to Sim
3 months ago