Starbucks is forcing its people to mute their internal warning systems with its social justice indoctrination.  It is always the left's agenda to coerce people into one way of thinking.  Under the guise of compassion, Starbucks is actively working to reduce its employees' warning signals of impending danger or violence.

In the book Gift of Fear, author Gavin de Becker writes:

Denial has an interesting and insidious side effect.  For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when victimized is far, far greater than that of those who accept the possibility [of harm].

In essence, Starbucks is now insisting that its workers maintain a constant low grade of anxiety.  As a result, they will surely hesitate to take action that could reduce risks.  Hence, a dirty vagrant, a stoned out individual, or a visibly ill person will be able to sit in a Starbucks for as long as he wants.  The workers have now been mandated to ignore their instincts concerning possible harmful consequences.

By cloaking this ill advised approach under the rubric of purported bias, Starbucks is demanding a diminution of the alarm bells with which Providence has endowed humans.  Clearly, such a situation does not help the afflicted, who would be better served in a hospital or a shelter.  Certainly, it does not help Starbucks's bottom line as customers take their business elsewhere.  Ultimately, employees are now programmed to ignore problems, since nothing is to be viewed as particularly troublesome or disturbing in the barista utopia.

Such action is tantamount to the denial of reality.  Thus, seemingly intelligent and sane adults are being asked to reject certain truths despite a body of irrefutable data – i.e., people who don't regularly bathe will smell and make an environment uncomfortable and unhealthy for others, or people shooting up drugs are a danger to themselves and workers who are now responsible for cleaning up bloody needles.

What in the world does buying a cup of coffee have to do with race or sex, anyway?  Oh, I forgot: no one has to buy anything since Starbucks has issued the directive that "any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer."

By definition, a customer means "a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business."  How typical of the left that it makes the word customer mean whatever leftists want it to mean. 

I suspect that the 10- to 15-minute coffee transaction does not have the server even thinking about an individual's specific traits.  But Starbucks now has everyone thinking about race when it wasn't even an issue in the first place.  That is racism at its core.

Moreover, Starbucks has engineered a social justice onslaught with its Third Place Policy to include "gender identities and expressions, sexual identities, and religious affiliations."  The company will teach about the "racial and systemic bias" in America by reviewing Civil Rights history – as if nothing has improved in this country.  As David Horowitz has written, the "racist view is behind every assault by the left against America today."

In effect, as Christopher DeGroot asserts, "refusing to teach the young men a basic lesson about respect for order and authority, and disingenuously pretending that it is not a business but some kind of charity – Starbucks has created a monster.  Ah, much good may it do 'em!"

It has already backfired on Starbucks once.  In March of 2017, Starbucks decided to hire 10,000 refugees at worldwide locations.  It did not go over well with consumers, and "the company responded to the conservative backlash by saying it would speed up its previously stated goal of hiring 10,000 veterans and military spouses by 2018."

Starbucks would be well advised to remember:

[E]conomics is not politics.  One is a science, concerned with the immutable and constant laws of nature that determine the production and distribution of wealth; the other is the art of ruling.  One is amoral, the other is moral.  Economic laws are self-operating and carry their own sanctions, as do all natural laws, while politics deals with man-made and man-manipulated conventions.  As a science, economics seeks understanding of invariable principles; politics is ephemeral, its subject matter being the day-to-day relations of associated men.  Economics, like chemistry, has nothing to do with politics.  The intrusion of politics into the field of economics is simply an evidence of human ignorance or arrogance, and is as fatuous as an attempt to control the rise and fall of tides."

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.