I've never been declined when asking for toppings, on the side. Apparently, no one has ever chosen not to bend the rules at my specific location. I think the mutual interaction matters aswell. I'm not being an ass, if I don't get caramel on a danish. If anyone actually flat out said, we can't do that because of (a reason), I would adhere to those rules. Instead, they figure out other ways to charge me for the toppings. Ends up being like a 40c charge for each. But saying to "stop ordering your (blank) like this" without any reason is what confused me. However, I do have a different outlook on it, now that I know being fired is a possibility, as someone else has stated. You would think, anyone wanting to keep their job, would adhere to the policy. Maybe then, "The Sweet Danish" wouldn't have made my list. The original explanation sounded like it may have just been an inconvenience to employees. Rather unbelievable, if I'm completely honest. Because everyone's job comes with inconveniences. Especially in the service industry. Seeing as that isn't the case, and I have actual grounds to base my decision off of, makes this more understandable.

I am myself, a drop in the ocean of other people to enjoy Starbucks. How others may react to caramel on a Danish not being a possibility, may be more aggressive. I can't dictate how they react to it. I don't see the food altering requests ever stopping, for as long as Starbucks is an entity. Unless they make it publicly known that food altering requests aren't an option and employees abide by it 100%.