My default reaction to all things Starbucks is negative. Starbucks is not really a place I would choose to spend time or (not very often anyway) money. Plus, the coffee is not that great.
So when Starbucks upper echelon decided to close stores one afternoon in May to conduct training on racial "issues" etc., my reaction was negative. For one thing, a manager who throws an employee under the bus is not a good manager; as a military officer who throws his unit in the way of blame or danger is not a good officer. A Starbucks executive who throws a Starbucks manager under the BLM bus is not a good executive. For another thing, Law/Order.
But now the Starbucks training decision is being criticized because the anti-bias training session agenda is planned to include information from the (Jewish) Anti Defamation League. Black Lives Matter and the Women's March people are screaming this morning because, in fine, JOOOOOS! The cited article quotes Linda Sarsour calling the ADL "an anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian organization that peddles Islamophobia."
That's my conflict point.
See, I'm all in favor of being against antisemitism ("I hate Illinois Nazis!"), so Crowndot must risk being classified as a anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian organization that peddles Islamophobia, and commend Starbucks for including the ADL even if the idea of anti-bias training is repellent to me.
As I get older and older, life in the starkly divided United States actually seems to become easier in this: if the enemy of my friend is my enemy -- the enemy is more and more likely to declare his position these days in no uncertain terms.
But in this conflicted instance, the friend (ADL) of my (usually) enemy (Starbucks) is actually my friend. Rules were not made to be broken, but rules are often contraindicated.