>>99930023Anon that doesn't make it public. Which is why they can tell people they can't use the bathroom. The other anon at least recognizes this and is arguing that it's based on equality (another supposed non paying customer being allowed to use the bathroom)
Even if that one white guy is found to have been allowed and not the black guys they have to make the case that it was racially based. That's as difficult as proving intent which is why many politicians get off on negligence charges.
None of this would include criminal proceedings so it would be based on a preponderance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt. So they'll likely get a settlement rather than Starbucks getting into the weeds.
Bottom line if this was two white dudes kicked out nobody would or could care. Nobody would make the claim it was based on race. In a court of law "black people are historically victims of racism" doesn't apply to the current case. It would, again if they chose to fight this which they won't, come down to a pattern of racial profiling by this single manager.
