Is this racism, or confusion?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

newton3003

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2017
437
42
28
#1
Two black men walk into a coffee shop and sit down at a table, without having ordered anything yet. One of them asks a worker there if he can use the bathroom. The worker says he has to buy something first. The black man refuses to buy anything. The manager then calls the police, saying the men are in her coffee shop, sitting at a table, and they haven’t ordered anything. The two black men get arrested for trespassing. Is this racism, or is this confusion?

What would the Bible tell us? 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 tells us, “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you…and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work…” The men walked into a place that is not their own, nor do they work there. The worker, who does work there, says the man must buy something in order to use the bathroom. The Bible tells us to give to the poor and needy, but the men gave no indication of being either, but for the fact that one of them NEEDED to use the bathroom.

Neither of them seeked to buy anything, but they gave no indication of being without means. They were using, and seeked to use, the coffee shop’s facilities without giving anything in return, such as complying with the worker’s request to buy something.

Seeking something for nothing, goes against the Bible’s teachings. Exodus 20:17 says, “You shall not covet… anything that is your neighbor's.” GENESIS 3:19 says, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” It seems, then, at first glance, the men were wrong to expect free use of the coffee shop’s facilities.

But before we pass judgement, we should also consider once of Jesus’ parables, that of the good samaritan as told in LUKE 10:25-37: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead… a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion… Then he… brought him to an inn and… he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’” Did the innkeeper in the parable tell the man to keep his money? Did the innkeeper tell the man to keep his money and the innkeeper will take care of the stricken man for nothing in return? There is no account of the innkeeper saying that. Likewise, there is no indication that the man said to the innkeeper to take care of the stricken one without receiving any payment in return.

The man was a good samaritan. We don’t know if there is a good samaritan side to the innkeeper, but Jesus does not mention in the parable anything about the innkeeper being condemned for accepting the money, given the circumstances of the stricken man.

As God gave us a free will, we have a choice in what we do that involves others. The Bible only asks of us two things…that we treat others as we would expect to be treated, as written in Matthew 7:12, and we give others equal consideration as written in passages like Proverbs 24:23. In the coffee shop incident, there is no indication that people there who were not black were allowed to stay without buying anything. There is no indication that a man who was not black and asked to use the bathroom without intending to buy anything was granted his request. Until it’s shown otherwise, we would expect the workers to enforce their policy equally to everyone.

So…were the black men wrong for expecting something for nothing? Was the worker wrong for telling the black man he had to buy something to use the bathroom? You be the judge…
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,173
2,536
113
#2
Personally I think using the bathroom is a pretty small and simple request and Jesus gave and never once demanded anything in return also Jesus said "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
So in a sense the worker denied Jesus to be able to use the bathroom
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
837
113
#3
They didn't just go in and use the bathroom. They were loitering for an extended period of time and showed attitude while doing it.

I can't imagine Jesus being too thrilled.
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,173
2,536
113
#4
They didn't just go in and use the bathroom. They were loitering for an extended period of time and showed attitude while doing it.

I can't imagine Jesus being too thrilled.
The story never said they gave an attitude they simply refused to buy something plenty of people go into places without buying something but even if they gave an attitude we are called to be different than the rest of the world. Jesus wouldn't even deny one of the solders who helped arrest him healing so I doubt he would deny someone the ability to use the bathroom
 

mcubed

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2013
1,449
218
63
#5
Two black men walk into a coffee shop and sit down at a table, without having ordered anything yet. One of them asks a worker there if he can use the bathroom. The worker says he has to buy something first. The black man refuses to buy anything. The manager then calls the police, saying the men are in her coffee shop, sitting at a table, and they haven’t ordered anything. The two black men get arrested for trespassing. Is this racism, or is this confusion?

What would the Bible tell us? 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 tells us, “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you…and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work…” The men walked into a place that is not their own, nor do they work there. The worker, who does work there, says the man must buy something in order to use the bathroom. The Bible tells us to give to the poor and needy, but the men gave no indication of being either, but for the fact that one of them NEEDED to use the bathroom.

Neither of them seeked to buy anything, but they gave no indication of being without means. They were using, and seeked to use, the coffee shop’s facilities without giving anything in return, such as complying with the worker’s request to buy something.

Seeking something for nothing, goes against the Bible’s teachings. Exodus 20:17 says, “You shall not covet… anything that is your neighbor's.” GENESIS 3:19 says, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” It seems, then, at first glance, the men were wrong to expect free use of the coffee shop’s facilities.

But before we pass judgement, we should also consider once of Jesus’ parables, that of the good samaritan as told in LUKE 10:25-37: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead… a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion… Then he… brought him to an inn and… he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’” Did the innkeeper in the parable tell the man to keep his money? Did the innkeeper tell the man to keep his money and the innkeeper will take care of the stricken man for nothing in return? There is no account of the innkeeper saying that. Likewise, there is no indication that the man said to the innkeeper to take care of the stricken one without receiving any payment in return.

The man was a good samaritan. We don’t know if there is a good samaritan side to the innkeeper, but Jesus does not mention in the parable anything about the innkeeper being condemned for accepting the money, given the circumstances of the stricken man.

As God gave us a free will, we have a choice in what we do that involves others. The Bible only asks of us two things…that we treat others as we would expect to be treated, as written in Matthew 7:12, and we give others equal consideration as written in passages like Proverbs 24:23. In the coffee shop incident, there is no indication that people there who were not black were allowed to stay without buying anything. There is no indication that a man who was not black and asked to use the bathroom without intending to buy anything was granted his request. Until it’s shown otherwise, we would expect the workers to enforce their policy equally to everyone.

So…were the black men wrong for expecting something for nothing? Was the worker wrong for telling the black man he had to buy something to use the bathroom? You be the judge…


I'm a Jew. All of them should have paid. You know how us Jews' LOVE MONEY....LOL, LOL, LOL
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#6
Two black men walk into a coffee shop and sit down at a table, without having ordered anything yet. One of them asks a worker there if he can use the bathroom. The worker says he has to buy something first. The black man refuses to buy anything. The manager then calls the police, saying the men are in her coffee shop, sitting at a table, and they haven’t ordered anything. The two black men get arrested for trespassing. Is this racism, or is this confusion?

What would the Bible tell us? 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 tells us, “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you…and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work…” The men walked into a place that is not their own, nor do they work there. The worker, who does work there, says the man must buy something in order to use the bathroom. The Bible tells us to give to the poor and needy, but the men gave no indication of being either, but for the fact that one of them NEEDED to use the bathroom.

Neither of them seeked to buy anything, but they gave no indication of being without means. They were using, and seeked to use, the coffee shop’s facilities without giving anything in return, such as complying with the worker’s request to buy something.

Seeking something for nothing, goes against the Bible’s teachings. Exodus 20:17 says, “You shall not covet… anything that is your neighbor's.” GENESIS 3:19 says, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” It seems, then, at first glance, the men were wrong to expect free use of the coffee shop’s facilities.

But before we pass judgement, we should also consider once of Jesus’ parables, that of the good samaritan as told in LUKE 10:25-37: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead… a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion… Then he… brought him to an inn and… he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’” Did the innkeeper in the parable tell the man to keep his money? Did the innkeeper tell the man to keep his money and the innkeeper will take care of the stricken man for nothing in return? There is no account of the innkeeper saying that. Likewise, there is no indication that the man said to the innkeeper to take care of the stricken one without receiving any payment in return.

The man was a good samaritan. We don’t know if there is a good samaritan side to the innkeeper, but Jesus does not mention in the parable anything about the innkeeper being condemned for accepting the money, given the circumstances of the stricken man.

As God gave us a free will, we have a choice in what we do that involves others. The Bible only asks of us two things…that we treat others as we would expect to be treated, as written in Matthew 7:12, and we give others equal consideration as written in passages like Proverbs 24:23. In the coffee shop incident, there is no indication that people there who were not black were allowed to stay without buying anything. There is no indication that a man who was not black and asked to use the bathroom without intending to buy anything was granted his request. Until it’s shown otherwise, we would expect the workers to enforce their policy equally to everyone.

So…were the black men wrong for expecting something for nothing? Was the worker wrong for telling the black man he had to buy something to use the bathroom? You be the judge…
One of our Starbucks.

A woman walked into the Starbucks and asked to use the bathroom, but the rule is, if you don't buy something, you can't use the bathroom.

She left.

Two black men cane in to use the bathroom, same store. They sat down, and when they thought no one was looking one tried to sneak into the bathroom. Did'n work.

The police were called in, but they would not leave, so they were arrested and taken out.

I don't like coffee, but somethings I have to use the restroom, so I buy something to eat, and then used the bathroom.

See how easy that works? I guess I'm not important enough to stage demonstrations over. And the worker wasn't important enough so go fired for following the rule.

BTW, this was no big story unto our local news reported the protest the next day, and STILL happening.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#7
The story never said they gave an attitude they simply refused to buy something plenty of people go into places without buying something but even if they gave an attitude we are called to be different than the rest of the world. Jesus wouldn't even deny one of the solders who helped arrest him healing so I doubt he would deny someone the ability to use the bathroom
If they let the cops taking them out, they wouldn't have been arrested. There was definitely attitude. Still is. And that lawyer sure showed up quickly.
 
M

Miri

Guest
#8
I’m confused why would you need to ask to use the bathroom?

I don’t know of any place where you need to ask over this side of the pond. :confused:
 

Dan58

Senior Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,991
337
83
#9
From what I understood, they were allowed to use the restroom, but then came out and sat at a table without ordering anything. Then they were told that they needed to order something or leave, because the tables were for paying customers. Imo, nothing racist about it, business is business.. Most businesses don't allow loitering, they aren't bus stops or hang outs, especially when your occupying space reserved for customers. I've been asked more than once to leave a business if I wasn't going to buy anything, its their right because its their business and not a public park. If these 2 guys at Starbucks were white, we wouldn't have heard anything about it... jmo
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
837
113
#10
You've read different stories than I have, apparently.

Different from the rest of the world how? Accepting poor behavior of that kind is a far cry from charity.

The story never said they gave an attitude they simply refused to buy something plenty of people go into places without buying something but even if they gave an attitude we are called to be different than the rest of the world. Jesus wouldn't even deny one of the solders who helped arrest him healing so I doubt he would deny someone the ability to use the bathroom
 

tanakh

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2015
4,635
1,040
113
76
#11
People here use coffee shop bathrooms all the time. How does a member of staff know whether someone intends to buy something after they have used the facility? One minor incident has cost Starbucks thousands of Dollars because they deem it necessary to close down for training purposes. According to the report I read the Men were waiting for someone else to arrive before ordering. Another point is that the Police have better things to do. Supposing all store staff did the same Another Police division would be needed to cope with the calls.
 
Last edited:

OneFaith

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2016
2,270
369
83
#12
It is discrimination. I have walked out of a restaurant or store many times without making a purchase. Either I had to use the restroom or I didn't find anything I'd like to purchase. In most places they recognise they would lose a regular customer and her friends if they treated me that way. You are not required by law to make a purchase in a place open to the public. What if you looked around a car lot and was forced to purchase a new car or be arrested? If you stay longer than a normal customer without making a purchase (I'd say an hour) then they could claim you are loitering. I wouldn't call it racism since I didn't notice any mention of "because of the color of your skin."
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#13
Not everything what happens to a black person is racism.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,623
1,381
113
#14
I don't know about this store, or its location, but there are MANY public establishments that have had to start locking the bathroom doors, and hand out the key to paying customers.

I have seen the bathrooms after a bunch of rowdy kids, or drunks, or homeless people go in and trash the place. I've seen whole rolls of paper towels stuffed down the toilet, or urinal, feces and urine all over the floor, used toilet paper scattered everywhere....

Any business establishment has the right to run their business as they see fit. If a paying customer came in and started trashing the place, the business is completely within their right to insist that they leave. If they refuse to leave, then the police should be called.

This particular Starbucks had a policy that was clearly explained to the two men... according to the story. It sounds like they chose to make an issue of it, and were arrested.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#15
Ironically these jokers were there for a business meeting regarding a potential real estate opportunity with a local white businessman. Is it me or is there something wrong with is script?

Yet I couldn't help but notice that neither the two individuals arrested or the businessman who had arrived just as the two were being handcuffed had any sort of paperwork, despite the fact that usually in a business meeting you at least take notes especially in a real estate opportunity since all real estate transactions involving the purchase or sale of real property is required to be in writing, even other contractual matters are reduced to writing so why no documents?

“We were there for a real reason, a real deal that we were working on,” Robinson explained. “We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. … We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families. So I was like, ‘No, you’re not stopping that right now.'”
https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04/19/men-arrested-at-starbucks-say-they-feared-for-their-lives/

But in all fairness, they originally didn't schedule the meeting for that location but rather it was to be held at another Starbucks across town, but so happen to be moved to the Starbucks at this location for some unspecified reason. But it wasn't a location unfamiliar to one of the men arrested.

Nelson and Robinson, black men who became best friends in the fourth grade, were taken in handcuffs from the Starbucks in Philadelphia’s tony Rittenhouse Square neighborhood, where Robinson has been a customer since he was 15. https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04/19/men-arrested-at-starbucks-say-they-feared-for-their-lives/

Seeing that one of the gentlemen was a customer of that particular Starbucks since he was 15, and the two had been friends since 4th grade, seems like it might be a place that it would be a place they would have been familiar with, including the requirement of a purchase.

But the whole jest of the matter is they informed the store manager that they did not want to purchase anything and they refused to obey the police officers instruction to leave the premises.

As far as that real estate opportunity, sure they are going to end up with that Starbucks location, or at least the value of it , but when the dust settles the lawyer is going to walk with the dough and they are going to be left with the content of their character.

[video=youtube;iR6oYX1D-0w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w[/video]


 

Angelique

Senior Member
Aug 19, 2016
109
11
18
#16
Ironically these jokers were there for a business meeting regarding a potential real estate opportunity with a local white businessman. Is it me or is there something wrong with is script?

Yet I couldn't help but notice that neither the two individuals arrested or the businessman who had arrived just as the two were being handcuffed had any sort of paperwork, despite the fact that usually in a business meeting you at least take notes especially in a real estate opportunity since all real estate transactions involving the purchase or sale of real property is required to be in writing, even other contractual matters are reduced to writing so why no documents?

“We were there for a real reason, a real deal that we were working on,” Robinson explained. “We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. … We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families. So I was like, ‘No, you’re not stopping that right now.'”
https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04/19/men-arrested-at-starbucks-say-they-feared-for-their-lives/

But in all fairness, they originally didn't schedule the meeting for that location but rather it was to be held at another Starbucks across town, but so happen to be moved to the Starbucks at this location for some unspecified reason. But it wasn't a location unfamiliar to one of the men arrested.

Nelson and Robinson, black men who became best friends in the fourth grade, were taken in handcuffs from the Starbucks in Philadelphia’s tony Rittenhouse Square neighborhood, where Robinson has been a customer since he was 15. https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04/19/men-arrested-at-starbucks-say-they-feared-for-their-lives/

Seeing that one of the gentlemen was a customer of that particular Starbucks since he was 15, and the two had been friends since 4th grade, seems like it might be a place that it would be a place they would have been familiar with, including the requirement of a purchase.

But the whole jest of the matter is they informed the store manager that they did not want to purchase anything and they refused to obey the police officers instruction to leave the premises.

As far as that real estate opportunity, sure they are going to end up with that Starbucks location, or at least the value of it , but when the dust settles the lawyer is going to walk with the dough and they are going to be left with the content of their character.

[video=youtube;iR6oYX1D-0w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w[/video]


I watched the song you shared, beautiful loved it :)
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#17
if someone pulls up to a gas station and parks their car in front of a pump, does not buy gas and just takes up space, seems to me they should move on.

I don't care if they are green and purple

it's just normal.

look at it this way..people are suspicious these days of anyone who behaves out of what is the 'norm' or 'expected'

normal would have been to at least ordered a coffee.

and Starbucks bent over backwards to try and avoid being handed the race card

if they had been white, would the article have read

Nelson and Robinson, WHITE men who became best friends in the fourth grade, were taken in handcuffs from the Starbucks in Philadelphia’s tony Rittenhouse Square neighborhood, where Robinson has been a customer since he was 15.

I doubt it

 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
837
113
#18
They even mocked the policeman's income of all things.

Ironically these jokers were there for a business meeting regarding a potential real estate opportunity with a local white businessman. Is it me or is there something wrong with is script?

Yet I couldn't help but notice that neither the two individuals arrested or the businessman who had arrived just as the two were being handcuffed had any sort of paperwork, despite the fact that usually in a business meeting you at least take notes especially in a real estate opportunity since all real estate transactions involving the purchase or sale of real property is required to be in writing, even other contractual matters are reduced to writing so why no documents?

“We were there for a real reason, a real deal that we were working on,” Robinson explained. “We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. … We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families. So I was like, ‘No, you’re not stopping that right now.'”
https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04/19/men-arrested-at-starbucks-say-they-feared-for-their-lives/

But in all fairness, they originally didn't schedule the meeting for that location but rather it was to be held at another Starbucks across town, but so happen to be moved to the Starbucks at this location for some unspecified reason. But it wasn't a location unfamiliar to one of the men arrested.

Nelson and Robinson, black men who became best friends in the fourth grade, were taken in handcuffs from the Starbucks in Philadelphia’s tony Rittenhouse Square neighborhood, where Robinson has been a customer since he was 15. https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04/19/men-arrested-at-starbucks-say-they-feared-for-their-lives/

Seeing that one of the gentlemen was a customer of that particular Starbucks since he was 15, and the two had been friends since 4th grade, seems like it might be a place that it would be a place they would have been familiar with, including the requirement of a purchase.

But the whole jest of the matter is they informed the store manager that they did not want to purchase anything and they refused to obey the police officers instruction to leave the premises.

As far as that real estate opportunity, sure they are going to end up with that Starbucks location, or at least the value of it , but when the dust settles the lawyer is going to walk with the dough and they are going to be left with the content of their character.

[video=youtube;iR6oYX1D-0w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w[/video]


 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
837
113
#19
There would have been no article at all. It would just be another incidence of loiterers being removed, lost in some police blotter.

if someone pulls up to a gas station and parks their car in front of a pump, does not buy gas and just takes up space, seems to me they should move on.

I don't care if they are green and purple

it's just normal.

look at it this way..people are suspicious these days of anyone who behaves out of what is the 'norm' or 'expected'

normal would have been to at least ordered a coffee.

and Starbucks bent over backwards to try and avoid being handed the race card

if they had been white, would the article have read



I doubt it

 
D

Depleted

Guest
#20
I’m confused why would you need to ask to use the bathroom?

I don’t know of any place where you need to ask over this side of the pond. :confused:
We have bathroom regulations built into the coding of a building. If it is a business, X amount of toilets per employees. If it is a restaurant, X amount of bathrooms per employees and customers. Have you ever gone into a paint store to use their bathrooms without first asking?

Now, imagine that same paint store is at the corner of the two busiest streets in your town and there is a parade or big ta-do that day. Big crowds outside. Should the paint store be expected to handle the "overflow?"

Well, in our case, that Starbuck is on the biggest pedestrian street in Philadelphia, two blocks from both biggest cross streets on our town. (Broad and Market. Even the names of the streets hint they are main streets. lol) The difference is a very busy day in a small town (like Founder's Day when everyone in town gathers together), is what that section of the city looks like every day of the week. It's so busy there that there are about four Starbucks within an eight block radius, and you still have to stand in line for 15 minutes before being served. (Not into coffee, but hubby likes it, so I buy him some when I'm about to go home.) They're like Christmas time at a video/bookstore. I'd estimate 100 people in the store at any given moment.

So how many bathrooms for that many people? That's what's coded in our building regulations. BUT there are no public bathrooms. So, where do pedestrians go when they have to "go?" Reasonable take is a restaurant. But the regulations are only set up for X number of customers and employees, so if we find out any particular restaurant allows people to walk off the street, use the bathroom, and never order something, the bathroom traffic just gets bigger. Who cleans up after them? Who foots the plumbing bill from over use on the toilets? AND, who has to make a bigger bathroom in an already-built building, just so pedestrians can use their bathrooms?