Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.

Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.

I’m thinking more about the implications of this legal argument. Does it mean vegetarians should be guaranteed prices equivalent to meat dishes? Is it religious discrimination if a restaurant doesn’t offer fish during Lent?

I’d rather just have Starbucks lower their prices. The actual legal case opens a can of worms we really don’t want to deal with.

If this leads to more veg options at better prices, sounds like a win to me.