Starbucks Union Alleges The Company Has Ordered the Removal of "Pride" Decorations, But Starbucks Corporate Denies This

Not sure what to think about this. Do I trust a left-leaning union that wants to make trouble for a corporation and force it to support extremist politics, or do I trust a soulless corporate lie-factory?

Just hoping for injuries here.

A Starbucks union, Starbucks Workers United, claimed:

Starbucks Workers United @SBWorkersUnited

BREAKING: In the middle of Pride Month, Starbucks BANS Pride decorations in stores across the United States.

IN THE MIDDLE OF PRIDE MONTH?!

IN THE MIDDLE OF PRIDE MONTH, STARBUCKS!??!

Do better, Starbucks. #DoBetter.

For the last two weeks, Starbucks workers have taken to social media to report that the company is no longer allowing Pride decorations in-store. This seems to be the first year the publicly "pro-LGBTQ+" company has taken this kind of stance.

Sounds pretty great!

But Starbucks corporate says the union is lying and that there's no such order.

Starbucks blasted recent "false" claims alleging that the global coffee company ordered stores across the United States to remove LGBTQ Pride flags on display under threat of conservative backlash.

After a Twitter account for a Starbucks employee union tweeted Tuesday that Starbucks decided to ban Pride Month decorations in many of its U.S. stores, the company denied the claim in a statement provided to Fox News Digital.

The company called the claim "false information," said it was "deeply concerned" by the spread of the false allegations and re-pledged its commitment to the LGBTQ community.

You'll notice that this denial is carefully crafted to not deny anything in particular.

Anytime someone issues a general, hazy, vague denial, and avoids denying the specific things denied, they're just admitting that it's true.

"False information" can mean something like, "We didn't order it, we strongly suggested it."

Lawyers routinely deny the whole of a statement if they can find a quibble with any minor part of the statement, and courts say that this is technically not perjury.

The union account followed the announcement with a lengthy Twitter thread detailing the situation. "For the last two weeks, Starbucks workers have taken to social media to report that the company is no longer allowing Pride decorations in-store. This seems to be the first year the publicly 'pro-LGBTQ+' company has taken this kind of stance," it continued.

A subsequent post cited conservative backlash against pro-LGBTQ Target products as part of the motivation for the decision, stating, "Taking a cue from Target, who bowed to anti-LGBTQ+ pressure and removed pride merchandise, corporate and district management are taking down the pride decorations that have become an annual tradition in stores."

The union then blasted the company's management, stating, "Starbucks is powered by many queer workers...

No shit, really? I never noticed that getting a coffee at Starbucks was essentially standing around watching a Drag Queen Story Hour.

... but management has failed to materially support the LGBTQ+ community. Last October, some workers have reported that their transgender benefit plan changed, causing them to pay out of pocket fees and lose access to certain providers."

It also claimed, "If Starbucks was a true ally, they would stand up for us, especially during a time when LGBTQ+ people are under attack. A company that cares wouldn't turn their back on the LGBTQ+ community to protect their already astronomically high profits."

A Starbucks spokesman commented on reports the company was removing Pride decorations from stores, saying, "We're deeply concerned by false information that is being spread especially as it relates to our inclusive store environments, our company culture, and the benefits we offer our partners. " (Reuters)

The account concluded, "True allyship with the LGBTQ+ community is negotiating a union contract that legally locks-in our benefits, our freedom of expression, and ways to hold management accountable."

So this is about chiseling more money out of Starbucks, and getting them to pay for the trannies' endless elective surgeries.

Starbucks responded with a forceful denial of the union's allegations. In its statement to Fox News, the coffee company said, "We unwaveringly support the LGBTQIA2+ community. There has been no change to any policy on this matter and we continue to encourage our store leaders to celebrate with their communities including for U.S. Pride month in June."

The union account collected up claims that Starbucks was taking down "pride" decorations -- but we don't know anything about the credibility of those claims.

These claims are being made by the same people who routinely scream "YOU'RE LITERALLY TRYING TO ERASE ME FROM EXISTENCE!!!" So, take them with a grain of salt.

In related Starbucks news: A jury has found them guilty of racism -- of the anti-white variety usually favored by The Regime -- and has ordered the overpriced coffee vendor to pay $25.6 million to a manager fired for being white.

She was specifically fired for asking the two famous "black businessmen," the guys who were just sitting in Starbucks, not ordering anything and refusing to order something when told they had to order something or leave, to leave.

A jury on Monday found in favor of former Starbucks regional director Shannon Phillips, who sued the company for wrongfully firing her, claiming she was terminated for being White.

Phillips, who worked for Starbucks for about 13 years and managed a region of stores in the area, was fired after the the arrest of two Black men at a Philadelphia Starbucks in April 2018.

The New Jersey jury returned a verdict of $25.6 million, including $25 million for punitive damages and $600,000 in compensatory damages, according to Console Mattiacci Law, which represents Phillips. The jury ruled unanimously after a six day trial, the lawyers said, noting that Phillips will also be seeking back and front pay.

Starbucks said it is disappointed in the decision and is evaluating its next steps, spokesperson Jaci Anderson told CNN.

This week's verdict is the latest development in an incident that has sparked protest and outrage. In 2018, the two men were asked to leave the coffee shop after sitting at a table without ordering anything. The men, who declined to leave because they were waiting for a business associate, were escorted out of the coffee shop in handcuffs after a store manager called police on them. They later reached settlement agreements with Starbucks and the City of Philadelphia.

In a lawsuit first filed in 2019, Phillips said the company discriminated against her because of her race when she was let go.

In very related news, the CEO of Lululemon -- who fired two white managers for calling the police on black thieves looting their store -- defended the anti-white racist firing, by claiming "It's only merchandise."

Well, merchandise and dangerous criminals who could hurt customers and employees.

I think Lululemon might be paying out $50 million pretty soon.

Lululemon's CEO stands by his decision to axe two employees who called the police while three masked men robbed a Georgia outpost, citing the company's "zero-tolerance policy" for intervening with a robbery as a reason for firing the workers.

"We have a zero-tolerance policy that we train our educators on around engaging during a theft," Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald told CNBC during Friday's "Squawk on the Street."

"Educators" are what Lululemon calls its workers.

McDonald claimed that the two fired female workers -- one of whom was an assistant manager -- were not fired for calling the cops, but because they didn't abide by company policy, which says employees shouldn't engage with thieves.

The two women, Jennifer Ferguson and Rachel Rogers said they were aware of the policy and were let go without being given "specific reasoning" for their firing.

"Educators."

Educators.

posted by Ace at 02:27 PM

| Access Comments