I almost responded yesterday to DonaldD's original point, that there was no evidence of uneven treatment, cause we only have one case. But then I realized, he was referring to the quotes as evidence of another event that was handled differently. Not something I'd rely on, but certainly enough for someone with a confirmation bias operating.
It is hearsay, which is evidence. Hearsay is largely not allowed in court because it's highly unreliable, particularly in a context like this where emotions are charged and reporters (rather officers) are looking for quotes. If you want evidence on the point it covers you generally have to drag in the actual person that was involved (ie the person who went to the bathroom without a purchase, not the person who heard about it) to testify. In race cases, it's been very common for interviewees to make specific inflammatory statements that don't hold up, either because they turn out not have really seen it or because the actual evidence directly contradicts them. I think relying on a quote as meaningful evidence is uncalled for, real news organizations would track down others who have used or been denied the bathroom codes rather than print an inflammatory comment from someone, who "heard that someone else..."
To me this is a real story that has all the trademarks of fake news. Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone is necessarily lying, I just think the way the tale has been told is designed to create more news than really exists. There are plenty of elements included to provide confirmation bias support regardless of you point of view and very little facts to dispute or discredit any specific interpretation. This story looks, to me, like it was deliberately crafted and under-researched to maximize the potential to generate controversy, rather than any desire for accurate reporting of information.
In fact, if Starbucks didn't actually discriminate then this whole story is effectively a misleading lie.
Wayward wrote a long write up that it many ways just echoes what I originally said. Whether or not there was racism actually involved, an altar-call was issued on the basis of racism, which means any "non-racist" must prove their faith by jumping in on the side of the men without regard to what the underlying facts really are. Even asking questions about the underlying facts is evidence of either your express racist tendencies or some kind of "privilege" that's preventing you from acknowledging the true racist underpinnings here. The underlying facts, as Wayward pointed out, don't matter at all, this is about the "big picture" and the "historical background."
LetterRip, I do think you should rethink the 'not Rosa Parks' comment. To me these guys would be exactly like Rosa if they refused to comply in the face of an actual racist enforcement of the policy. Unfortunately, the media is not interested in providing the actual facts to let us know if there is a real racist policy (which should have happened before they ran the story), or at least they aren't interested until the exciting racial story plays out in ratings wins and headlines. They may deign to write it up accurately after the headlines are done, thus protecting themselves from liability by issuing a "correction," and claiming 'no harm no foul,' notwithstanding very big harm all around.
