WALSH: The Facts Are In. The Real Story At Starbucks Is Entitlement, Not Racism.

When the controversy over two black men getting escorted out of a Starbucks by police first erupted, I was skeptical of the racism claims but I said I needed to hear all the facts. Well, now we have the facts. It is now confirmed that this incident stems not from racism but from entitlement.

We were told at first that two black men sat down at a table, and, out of nowhere, for no reason other than their race, were summarily perp walked out of the establishment by an army of police officers. This already made little sense for a number of reasons, including the fact that the incident occurred at a store in Philadelphia. The store presumably sees hundreds of black customers every week. If it was in the habit of having black people randomly arrested, why is this the first time we're hearing about it?

Then more information came out. It was discovered that this particular location has a problem with loitering (not surprising for a restaurant in an urban area), and the manager in question has had potentially dangerous altercations with loiterers in the past. Then we find out that the two men were warned that the cops would be coming and they responded, "Go ahead and call them. We don't care."

A couple of days later, Ben Shapiro revealed that the manager, Holly, is an "SJW feminist of the highest order," according to a regular customer at that location. Certainly not the picture of a slobbering, uncontrollable racial bigot who hates black people so much that she reports them to the police without provocation.

Finally, over the past several hours, two additional details have come to the surface:

1) The 911 call placed by Holly, in which she says, very reasonably, "I have two gentlemen in my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave.” This is significant because it confirms that the men were given the option to at least buy something and, incredibly, they refused.

2) Their own testimony, which they gave to "Good Morning America" on Thursday. According to their own version, they walked into the store, grabbed a table, and then asked to use the restroom. The manager told them that they had to buy something to use it. They declined, and went back to sit at the table without having purchased anything. Now that they had called attention to themselves, the manager was aware of their presence and aware that they were not paying customers. She approached them and offered to get them drinks or anything else they might want. They declined. They were asked to leave and they declined. The police came and asked them to leave and they declined. This is their own version.

When asked on "Good Morning America" how they would respond to people who say they broke the rules by loitering and not buying anything, their lawyer declared that Starbucks is a "place to meet." In other words, they have decided that this private establishment is more like a camping ground or a public park. A person is entitled to take up seats in a busy restaurant without buying so much as a $2 coffee in order to earn the privilege. The Starbucks CEO, who has spent all week cowering to the mob and throwing his innocent store manager under the bus, has now affirmed this interpretation. He may very well have destroyed his business in the process. So be it.

But the fact remains — and it is a fact now — that these two men were not the victims of "racism." They not only broke the rules but did so brazenly and obnoxiously. What sort of person is approached politely in this kind of situation, asked to buy something so that paying customers are not deprived of the seating, and actually answers "no"? An incredibly entitled person. And now I'm sure they are about to be "entitled" to a multi-million dollar settlement, all because Starbucks tried to enforce its rules against loitering.

One other thing to keep in mind here. There is a real victim in this case: the Starbucks manager whose life is now in ruins, and who is probably afraid to even leave her house, all because she tried her best to follow her company's policies. For that, she is Public Enemy Number One across the nation, and the CEO of her company has tossed her to the wolves. She was the victim of the rude and unacceptable behavior of these men, and now she is the victim of a pitchfork mob comprised of hysterical people who do not know the facts and do not care about them.

If anyone should sue, it should be she. But that's not how things work in America anymore.

What's Your Reaction?