Starbucks is not a charity.

Nor is it the public square.

It is a business.

Yet, the recent Starbucks corporate decision that you cannot hang out or use their restrooms without buying something has generated self-righteous indignation in some quarters.

The leading common denominator among those objecting is the assertion Starbucks is doing it just to get rid of the homeless.

Duh.

If you don’t think that is big part of the  reason, then you are naive.

That said, Starbucks has no problem if you are a homeless individual and you buy something while making use of their tables and chairs for a sizable period of time.

The Starbucks inside of the Manteca Safeway can count among its regulars a man who has been homeless off and on for most of the past decade or so.

He will from time-to-time buy a coffee at the Starbucks and sit at the tables just inside the entrance.

The homeless do have money whether it is disability, Social Security for those 62 and older, doing small jobs, or panhandling.

You might think it is crazy for a homeless individual to spend limited funds on Starbucks that has never been described as being inexpensive.

In the overall scheme of things, it’s better than self-medicating whether it is with alcohol or drugs which one should also question the wisdom of spending sparse money on.

But that isn’t the point.

Starbucks, just like other stores around Manteca, will treat the homeless just like other paying customers when they are buying something and conducting themselves in a civilized manner.

Drop by your neighborhood 7-Eleven or some other convenience store.

Loitering and littering, though, is another issue as is belligerent behavior.

So is “harassing” customers trying to enter or exit stores.

Panhandling can — and often does — fall into that category.

It doesn’t matter if those who are doing it are sheltered or unsheltered.

That said, there is no denying the homeless by far constitute the majority of such individuals.

Some of those  slamming Starbucks say they are discriminating against the homeless by making them buy something to use the restroom.

Before they came up with the corporate version of mi casa es tu casa to quell a public relations nightmare when two Black men in 2018 who had dropped by a Philadelphia Starbucks for a business meeting and did not buy anything after a while were asked to leave and ended up getting arrested and blowing up social media, it was a rule of thumb that Starbucks was not a de facto public square.

Granted, the police arresting them was over the top unless there was some mitigating circumstance rooted in their interaction with law enforcement.

But it was the policy of that Starbucks, and other locations, that you had to be a paying customer to occupy space or use their bathrooms before the 2018 incident.

Three years prior to that, we were in Sausalito with some out-of-state friends when one of them had to go to the bathroom.

We were unable to find any park restrooms or such along the waterfront when we noticed a Starbucks on a side street.

Yes, they had a sign that stated no public restrooms as well that the chairs and tables were for paying customers.

Yes, they stopped our friend from using it.

That said, I went ahead and spent $5 on some coffee so she could use the bathroom.

I don’t drink coffee. 

Another friend who was with us that I ended up buying the coffee for who wasn’t in the mood for it, was a bit indignant that the Starbucks was basically a pay to go place.

I got it.

Not only was the Starbucks location in a high trafficked tourism corridor but it was relatively small with seating at a premium.

Someone simply resting their bones without buying something was cutting into their ability to serve paying customers.

As far as the restroom, they did not open Starbucks store to provide free public restrooms.

If that sounds inhumane, keep in mind someone has to clean those restrooms and stock it with paper products.

That might sound hardcore or chintzy, but at the time there were a few convenience store/gas station combos in Manteca that resorted to declaring they had no public restrooms or you had to be a customer to get the key.

And, yes, the reason was the behavior of many homeless individuals.

It’s not because they were going to the bathroom as much as it was the practice of some from time-to-time to take a paper towel version of sponge baths.

They just didn’t go through an inordinate amount of paper towels and such. They left a mess on the floor of paper towels and items they discarded that they brought in with them as well as puddles of dirty water on the floor.

One exasperated store owner shared how some would even smudge dirt on mirrors and walls.  The sinks ending up filthy was also a common problem.

Those working at the East Yosemite Avenue Chevron station during that time, had to spend an inordinate amount of time keeping the in-store bathrooms clean given the close proximity of homeless who had taken over the adjoining Spreckels Historical Plaza and used their restrooms to constantly bathe.

Chevron didn’t lock off their bathrooms. And by not doing so, they had to devote more dollars to labor to keep the bathrooms presentable.

The more indignant on social media characterize Starbucks ending its open door policy as an “absolutely terrible and greedy decision.’

No it’s not. It’s about mooching when all is said and done.

Starbucks has the right to refuse service to anyone who doesn’t follow policies that aren’t rooted in discrimination.

Starbucks is saying no to people hanging out in their stores and using their restrooms unless they are paying customers.

It doesn’t matter if they are businessmen, tourists from North Dakota, or homeless.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com