Shane Vander Hart of Caffeinated Thoughts (an Iowa conservative politics blog):
...Starbucks has claimed to be “post politics and post partisan” nevertheless decided to jump into the political fray back in January in order as a corporation throw its support behind same sex marriage legislation in Washington State. They are obviously free to do that, and we are free to demonstrate our disapproval. It seems to be a odd business decision to make a decision that will alienate roughly half of your customer base.
And yet they did. Voluntarily and apparently enthusiastically as reported by Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization of Marriage who attended a recent shareholders meeting [...] thus the Dump Starbucks campaign was born. A portion of every coffee, bag of coffee beans or ground coffee, lattes, etc. purchased goes toward their assault on traditional marriage. If the CEO, Howard Schultz, decided to just personally get involved that’s a completely different thing, but they decided as a corporation to get involved – shareholders, employees, and customers who believe differently be damned.
Until they shift back into a neutral position, while I’ll miss my French Roast Coffee Beans and Café Americanos, I can get my coffee elsewhere.
23 Comments
Where does 'half the customer base' come from?
I doubt many of the signers of the petition will hold out forever ..... And they are the hard core. Only 20000 have signed. A flea scratching an elephant. Even half a million would be a flea vs global sales. nOM would have to spend millions on advertising to try to g et this higher.
This will be an epic fail like JC Penney boycott.
So, correct me if I'm wrong but companies shouldn't take a stand on anything?? And if they take a stand on something, what percentage of customers would have to be on board before it's okay?? And how would that be determined?? Every time someone gets a coffee, would the customer have to fill out a questionnaire?
What a shame that the money that is being spent on this campaign isn't being used in a better way ie: food for the homeless, money for the parent-less etc.
Just about every corporation that I'm aware of, has some cause that they believe in. If believe Bank Of America is on board with gay marriage & I'm sure there are others. Bravo that you feel strongly enough to boycott but you may not be able to buy much of anything in the end. Good luck!
PM check again...22000 +
Denying the right of civil marriage is not a neutral position. The problem you have with Starbucks' stance is that it offends the wrong half of their consumers.
Assuming, of course, that recognizing the rights of their employees and treating them fairly offends half of Starbucks' customer base. Like Paul Mc in comment #1, I question the truth of that.
There is a difference between the right to marriage and the right to have marriage redefined to suit one's sexual preference. No one has the right to the latter.
No one has the right to use their religion as a hammer against those who don't believe the same way, yet that is just what NOM, which is basically owned by both the Catholics and the Mormons tries to do. What WILL you protest against when marriage is open to everyone in the future? Oh right nothing because you'll all be dead.
I will NEVER go back to purchasing from Starbucks. It doesn't take much for me to 'retire' as customer from a particular business. I don't need a coffee every 10 blocks, plus i make much better and healthier coffee myself, with $27 a pound prize winning coffee beans from Kona, Hawaii.
I have a much much better coffee house with a much better (more modern) espresso machine than Starbucks. Would be interesting to compared the caffeine content of Starbucks coffees with other coffee houses. No. A decaf coffee is no longer coffee, nor does it taste like coffee. It's like a car without wheels, compared to a car with wheels.
I also plan to do away with Google products systematically, but will still use the free search engine. But i don't click on any of their pay-per-click advertisements. So be it.
GZeus: Note white men still married women, not men of the opposite color. The issue had nothing to do with same-sex civil marriage, or benefits. And Blacks could marry Asians back then, which you do not mention.
I actually think the miscegenation State laws were put in place, in part, to protect slaves, or Black workers, from getting sexually abused by their owner.
No legal analysis i have found develops this angle, but if one looks further back in history (Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional.), one finds the original issue was not about marriage, but about sexual relationships between blacks and whites, legal 'solutions' which went back to the Civil War, and the freedom of slaves. Yet, many blacks continued to be in a sort of 'slavery' due to economic restraints and lack of political power, and needed to be protected from sexual abuse. I mean, some owners or bosses still get horny, today, and abuse their administrative powers.
Ironically, it was the sexual abuse which created the mix of races that would lead to 'Blacks', or should we say 'Browns' gaining in political power, and then changing (forever) the marriage laws in some States.
Get real.
Little Man..you're a racist...does this stop anywhere on the blog site or are you all obsessed with this?
"that is just what NOM, which is basically owned by both the Catholics and the Mormons tries to do"
That's very amusing. Can you prove it? And, perhaps you're not aware that most Mormons don't drink coffee anyway, and probably make up a tiny percentage of Starbuck's customers; AND, they only make up 1-2% of the entire U.S. population, and probably have a tiny effect on politics. Just sayin.'
re #6
"No one has the right to use their religion as a hammer against those who don't believe the same way."
No one has the right to use their sexual proclivities as a hammer against those who don't believe the same way.
No one should be using hammers, but everyone should have the right to vote, express their views, write their representatives, and make their own decisions about where they will spend their dollars. Catholics and Mormons, gays and straights all have the same right to their opinion. Blacks and Evangelicals support the traditional definition of marriage at about the same rates and Catholics and Mormons, which is why state DOMA amendments passed by huge margins in the South.
Since Mormons (aka Latter-day Saints) generally don't drink coffee, the Mormons are already not frequenting Starbucks.
"Denying the right of civil marriage is not a neutral position"
No citizen is denied the right of marriage, civil or otherwise. Such an assertion is a distortion of the facts, frequently in the cause of the promotion of sexual identity politics, at the expense of truth.
You know what I think - SCREW STARBUCK'S - Does anybody remember Starbuck's "HELP" for our soldiers right after 9-11 happened ?
I just cant stand Starbucks because there was a movement during the war right after 9-11 to get things to the soldiers that they missed the most from home. Alot of them missed Starbuck's coffee, so Starbucks was approached to donate coffee to send to them to make them feel closer to home. ALL the other companies approached were happy to donate and even contribute to help the effort to make our soldiers more comfortable but Starbuck's response was that they will not support any type or form of aiding or comforting anyone who participates in the war and that they were somehow evil for being soldiers. That was the end of me and Starbuck's
MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE! MARRIAGE FOR GAYS! MARRIAGE FOR LESBIANS! MARRIAGE FOR TG'S!
Rich, the proper term is heterosexist. Not racist - racism involves race.
OK, the proof is in the pudding,
Dump starbucks, vote 22,865 pledges.
The Thank You Starbucks petition, 289,690 votes.
Look who's in the minority now. How does it feel?
http://sumofus.org/campaigns/thank-starbucks/?sub=fb
Rich: I am not rich like you. So that's why you call anyone a racist, whom you don't like. Who are you asking the questions? Do Racists have rights? Or does freedom of speech have to be to your liking? Not.
BC: How old are you? Marriage for Father/Daughter! Let's go the extra mile, then. Yeah,
Dear nom: you just inspired me to drink more Starbucks than ever.
yes because being gay is the same thing as committing incest.
nova: I contest the idea of anyone 'being' gay. I am being gay (glad) right now. I that what you mean? Do you anything against two adults, father and his daughter marrying? I mean, most likely they already love each other, if you know what i mean. In Hawaii, the kings used to marry their sister. I read that when the king died, the wife/sister would take a rock and break her front teeth with it, as a sign of remorse - an expected symbolism. I mean, we have contraceptives nowadays. What's the problem with adult father/daughter marriages? Shouldn't there be 'equality'?
I always thought that Homosexuality as its originally termed has always been more of a "Lifestyle Change". I believe the whole trend towards Homosexuality started with a lot of depressed people who got sick of dating the opposite sex and decided to "change" their sexual orientation. However, those who actually are "attracted" to those of the same sex is either something else entirely! Than that can become physiological/hormal or even chemical. Perhaps its due to an imbalance of some kind ....That still confuses me... Mostly because I've never heard of a "Gay gene".
I am pro marriage but there are so many companies now support immorality that it would be impossible to buy basic needs if we boycotted them. Almost every company including the one that I work for now offers domestic partner benefits.