[c0nsilienc3]

As you said, it's an anecdote. And it's nice that it works out in that one location.

Alternatively, I've seen how this has affected Starbucks in the nicer parts of San Francisco and the East Bay. Some Starbucks locations smell horrible, some of the restrooms are trashed and there is toilet paper everywhere. In one Starbucks on Market Street, a homeless person decided to hole up in the restroom and take a nap on the nice, cool floor with the a/c going.

I can never support forcing a private business into offering a public utility.

[_bxg1]

> forcing a private business into offering a public utility

But this was decided by Starbucks itself?

I totally agree that the public sector needs to step up and offer its own solution. But in the absence of that, this is better than nothing.

[c0nsilienc3]

Ah you are correct. It was Starbucks' decision after the following incident:

>"In April, two African American males were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks after one asked to use the restroom but was told only paying customers could use them. After he sat down with his friend while waiting to be joined by a business associate for a meeting, the police came and arrested both, sparking national outrage.

Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson subsequently apologized to the victims and reached an undisclosed financial settlement."

[PierceJoy]

> I can never support forcing a private business into offering a public utility.

So I suppose you support increase taxation to fund these public utilities?

Also, Starbucks wasn't forced to do this. They chose to.

[jjeaff]

Or maybe they support decreased military spending or other waste to pay for it.

[PierceJoy]

Sounds good to me. I bet they don't, though. Regardless, their premise is still false. No one was forced to do anything.