NOM BLOG

THANK YOU for Dumping Starbucks and Standing Up for Marriage!

 

Dump Starbucks

Welcome! Thank you so much for taking the DumpStarbucks.com pledge. You and more than 30,000 other Americans are standing up to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and letting him know we think Starbucks should be selling coffee—not pushing gay marriage! Thank you.

I'm Jonathan Baker, head of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project. I was there at the Starbucks annual meeting at the Seattle Opera House in March because I really wanted to ask Howard a question: His executives were claiming the corporation endorsed gay marriage in Washington State, and that they did so because gay marriage is "core" to the Starbucks brand. Like you, I respect the role that businesses play in creating great products and services, as well as jobs, so I wanted to make sure that this view that Starbucks=Gay Marriage was endorsed at the top.

And like you I was shocked when Howard told me "yes." So we launched our ongoing DumpStarbucks.com campaign to let these rich guys in their Seattle bubble know: diversity and tolerance should include us too! Don't trample on the sacred values of so many of your customers and employees, Howard. It's not nice, it's not smart, and it's certainly not inclusive!

Each week, I'd like to share with you the latest developments in this campaign, the news stories and more importantly the stories from people like you who are making your voices heard!

Most recently we have taken DumpStarbucks.com international! Last week our Mandarin, Arabic, Turkish, Spanish, and Indonesian translations of the Dump Starbucks website went live. While the international effort is still in its infancy, folks in China are beginning to take notice, with Beijing Shots offering a liberal take on our site and advertising. National Public Radio also picked up on our international efforts.

This past week OneNewsNow picked up on the DumpStarbucks.com campaign with their story, "What Coffee is your Church Drinking?"

Let me share with you the courageous story of one DumpStarbucks.com supporter who emailed her experience to us.

At about 1PM today (4-4-12), I walked into Starbucks, Flower Hill (Gaithersburg, MD) and asked to speak to the manager. A young woman appeared, speaking with an Eastern European accent. I told her that we had been regular Starbucks patrons (including at this location), but that we no longer would be...anywhere. I then said: "We, and many we know, have chosen to join the international boycott of Starbucks, because of their recently-announced corporate 'core values', which include the support of same-sex marriage. I oppose this policy for religious reasons. This is a serious moral issue, which affects our whole society. Thus, it is an infringement upon and an offense to my religious values & freedoms." The manager answered very sympathetically and courteously, saying, "Oh, I didn't know about this [corporate policy]; I'm so sorry this offends you!" I then asked her to pass on my comments to the corporate level, and she readily agreed to do so.

At this point I nodded & said, "Thank you for listening."

Tell us what you think. Is this something you'd be willing to do? We’d love to hear your story, whether it involves going to a store manager, or simply sharing your thoughts with a few friends. Just hit "reply."

I have one thing you can do today to help make your voice heard. If you are a Facebook user can you go on your Facebook page and "like" the DumpStarbucks.com Facebook page. Thank you so much for caring about God's vision of marriage—and about corporate fairness. We look forward to continuing to work with you as we support marriage and the workplace rights of employees and customers to hold personal opinions on marriage without being told by corporations their views are unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Baker
Director—Corporate Fairness Project
National Organization for Marriage

The National Organization for Marriage Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization, gifts to which are deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.

27 Comments

  1. Skooter McGoo
    Posted April 24, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized in the USA.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted April 24, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Marrtiage was defined by the church; not the state. The state does not have the right to change the defintion of institutions the state had no hand in creating.

  3. Wally Leimgruber
    Posted April 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    America, needs to understand the importance of traditional marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman only. This is much more than just the definition of a word. This is about the survival of a great nation.

  4. Michael
    Posted April 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Marriage actually existed long before the founding of the church.

  5. Zach
    Posted April 24, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the info, Randy. I had no idea the church was what finally made interracial marriage legal.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted April 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Not in this nation; never in this nation.

    The marriage construct in the United States traces its creation back to well over 1500 years of Christian tradition which itself traces its construct back over 5000 years through Judaism. The marriage corruption movement traces its roots to 1972 where in Baker v. Nelson SCOTUS precedence dictates that limiting marriage to one man one woman constructs is "consistant with this nations history and traditions."

  7. Posted April 25, 2012 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the update, Mr. Baker.

    I have similarly approached the managers of several local Starbucks, and delivered the message that I will not be patronizing them any longer.

    I wish we could have "Dump Starbucks" bumper stickers and buttons, maybe even yard signs......

    I am very glad to see NOM sticking to this, it will be a very fruitful campaign over time, especially as the marriage battles heat up this year.

  8. Kathy Baldock
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    LIkewise I have gone into Starbucks, "bravely" asked to speak with the manager and told them I was not going to Starbucks because of their fairness in treating people equally.

  9. Rebecca Boyd
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    I know that we have separation of church and state, but everyone has a law written on their hearts there by God, and some times the masses encourage one another to do the wrong thing. I think this marriage amendment should pass to defend God's specially designed union for a man and a woman. When there is no revelation the people cast off restraint. I just want to say that God loves everyone that is for sure, and He desires us all to seek righteous lives and then peace will be forthcoming.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Kathy,

    How is taking one side over the other fair and ethical?

    I imagine in the world of the marriage corruption movement equality, fairness, and ethics are luxuries they only reserved for those that agree with them. Yet another example of the marriage corruption movement seeking to impose their ideology on this nation through the co-opting of language.

  11. Ruth
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    C'mon, one-third of a football stadium's worth of people out of 350,000,000 Americans and billions of others from your international campaign is a success?

  12. dn
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    NOM has said they don't want corporations taking sides on this issue but I wonder if NOM would be calling Starbucks out had they taken NOM's side.

    Oh wait I don't wonder at all. NOM would be all over that news.

  13. MrJordan
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Hmm I've always said and thought that McDonalds coffee is better!!

  14. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    dn,

    Your prognostication skill have been tried, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.

    Next!

  15. Posted April 25, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Ruth: The campaign is certainly a success, since it has already situated the position of the corporation in the minds of those of us who are very committed marriage supporters.

    The campaign will be a much, much greater success, when the marriage issue heats up greatly later this year in the context of the election campaign and the marriage battles in MD and MN.

    The campaign will be a truly important success, as it spreads overseas, into nations not yet infected with the marriage corruption virus, nations upon which the SBUX corporate growth rate, and hence ultimately stock price, depends.

    Like all good boycotts, this one wins on moral grounds alone.

    But this one also wins on financial grounds, because the limitless arrogance of the marriage corruption movement does not go down well among those of us who believe in marriage as the union of the genders, and the source of the future generations of our species, best nurtured.

    Stay tuned.

    This one will have real teeth, and will go down in corporate history as an example of how to devastatingly miscalculate the damage to one's brand.

    The SBUX mistake will be taught at Harvard Business School for decades to come, I think :-)

  16. Christa
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    I don't think any businesses should take sides in a matter of personal preference. To many, these have very deep moral implications. A moral and personal decision on the part of one person should remain that person's personal information, not put into the corporate scene by businesses of any kind. Big business should keep its nose out of personal choice. Back up what your business is about, not what you think will help you get more customers. Focus on coffee if you're a coffee business, because we don't want gay marriage, we want coffee. Let the gay marriage rights companies deal with their own propaganda.

  17. DavidKCMO
    Posted April 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    One venti 1/3 decaff triple soy hazelnut no foam latté, please.

  18. Posted April 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Nom please reach to Conservative Christians in S.Korea. Email campaign stores to remove Starbucks product.

  19. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2012 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    It all comes down to word association. When people start associating immoral, corrupt, decadent, and elitism with 'Starbucks' the die has been cast.

    Decadent: marked by decay or decline

    Immoral: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

    Corrupt: to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions

    Die has been cast: irrevocable

  20. OvercameSSA
    Posted April 26, 2012 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Ha! My wife has no objection to so-called SS"M," however, she does have an objection to $11 for an 11oz. package of Stbux beans. We've SWITCHED (and are saving $5/package) and are happy with our new brand!

  21. Pat
    Posted April 26, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    "...diversity and tolerance should include us too!"

    Logic does not work that way!
    Your position is that other people should be mistreated; a commitment to treating all people correctly does not include respect for that position.

    In fact, it CAN'T.

  22. Pat
    Posted April 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Christa, sweetie... that *is* the Starbucks position.

    Your position is that you can make that same "personal choice" for everybody else. Well, okay, only gay people--if they're straight, you're okay with them making their own choice, but gay people only get one option.
    Failing to disagree with that statement would be an unacceptable failing on the part of a business with either employees or customers who are people.

  23. Pat
    Posted April 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    @Randy:
    "...equality, fairness, and ethics are luxuries they only reserved for those that agree with them."

    Despite the National Organization for Marriage's (an apparently-international group opposed to certain people marrying... at this point, I'm not certain they're really an organization) consistent use of words to mean things other than their meanings....
    Words have meanings. The anti-equal, anti-fair, anti-ethics side can't use those terms to refer to itself--without lying, anyway; this isn't OUR rule, it's called "truth".

  24. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Pat,

    Was that supposed to make sense?

    In the 'Alice in Wonderland' world of the marriage corruption movement right is wrong, up is down, the truth is a lie, and a lie is the truth.

  25. Posted April 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    "gay people only get one option."

    They have the same legal options as everyone else--to marry another consenting adult of the opposite sex, who is not already closely related. "Gay" has nothing to do with marriage eligibility laws.

    "group opposed to certain people marrying..."

    Incorrect. NOM supports all individual citizens exercising their right to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation or "gay" political identity is irrelevant in laws regulating marriage eligibility. Blind justice at its finest.

    What is the moral/ethical/fair justification for neutering marriage and establishing SSM?

    What does sexual orientation have to do with anything?

  26. Ruth
    Posted April 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Clearly, you don't know this, but a satisfying sexual marital relationship is an ideal, and fundamentally impossible in your "two gays marrying each other" scenario. I have no interest in being told I must live a sexless life because "Daughter of Eve" sez so.

  27. Chairm
    Posted April 30, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Ruth, same-sex sexual behavior is not required for those who'd SSM -- not anyplace where SSM has been imposed. And the SSM campaign does not propose making that mandatory for eligiblity to SSM.

    Now, why is same-sex sexual behavior idealized by you, really?