Staff Reports
Starbucks, once the go-to spot for non-paying coffee enthusiasts and aspiring authors who have yet to write a single word, has officially decided that only those who can meet a very specific transaction requirement deserve to sip their overpriced lattes on their furniture. As part of a new policy unveiled this week, the coffee giant will no longer allow patrons to saunter in and treat the café like a public park, creating a new standard that will require customers to open their wallets before taking a seat.
The coffee chain’s rebranding as the “community living room” has seen better days, particularly after the infamous incident at a Philadelphia location where two individuals caused a media frenzy when they were asked to leave for not buying anything. This debacle triggered accusations of racism and a public relations nightmare that would make any spin doctor’s head spin, culminating in an arrest that exploded into a national headline-grabbing episode. Thanks in part to the uproar from activists and commentators, Starbucks learned the hard way that running an open-door policy while managing a café is not as simple as brewing a pot of coffee.
With the latest changes in place, only patrons with the prized possession of a receipt will enjoy the amenities of Starbucks’ “cafes, patios, and restrooms.” The new code of conduct also aims to curb what they have dubbed misuse or disruption of their spaces. Apparently, this means that alcohol, drugs, and vaping will now be subjected to the same scrutiny that the fiscal health of the company faces. It’s almost poetic—Starbucks is trying to put the “café” back in café culture, instead of letting it devolve into a chaotic free-for-all.
Starbucks reverses open-door policy years after controversy https://t.co/crIcpBT3GZ
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 14, 2025
As if the notion of paying for coffee isn’t already enough to keep disgruntled customers at bay, Starbucks’ Rittenhouse Square regional manager recently took home an astonishing $25.6 million after a jury deemed her firing over the aforementioned incident to be unjust. It turns out, being white in a racially charged scenario apparently requires a hefty payout to offset the angst of the diversity warriors. While the two gentlemen involved all but walked away scot-free, the courts decided that firing her for her role in the situation stank of imbalance. The irony here is thicker than a mocha frappuccino.
Meanwhile, the corporate world seems to be shifting towards a more common-sense approach. Companies like Meta, Walmart, Lowe’s, Toyota, and Ford have taken the hint and are scaling back their diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. In a refreshing turn of events, these brands are stepping away from making hiring decisions based on race or other identity metrics. It appears that the corporate market has finally decided that a hiring process should be based more on merit than on what a person’s racial or gender identity brings to the table, much like how Starbucks will now be focusing on whether someone is willing to pay for that dark roast before taking a seat.
