A Catholic Looks at Dumping Starbucks


Marcel Lejeune blogs for young Texan Catholics:

Starbucks has publicly supported the gay-rights political agenda for years, and joined an amicus brief against the federal Defense of Marriage Act. One executive went so far as to say that their stance "is core to who we are and what we value as a company." That is telling.

But, what is a good Catholic supposed to do? There are tons of organizations with dubious practices. Some support Planned Parenthood, some fetal stem-cell research, some same-sex marriage, and some support multiple issues that the Church considers immoral.

... there is no reason you can't dump Starbucks. If you support dumping Starbucks and want to support a petition to have them change their policy - then visit the website. If you want some good coffee that goes to a good cause try these:


  1. eliasasm
    Posted April 27, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    I'm just not getting the point to the NOM peoples point. First off, there isn't any kind of gay-rights political agenda. Gay-rights is a Human-rights issue not politcal. I have to say that I find it appallingly sad that any Human being has had to and is still fighting to be a Human and that those that have and are still fighting are having to fight just because of who they are. It should be horrendous to any sane Human being to think that it is ok for a Human being to put up a vote against another Human being, just because you do not like who they are.

    " One executive went so far as to say that their stance "is core to who we are and what we value as a company." That is telling." ...Telling? Telling what? That Starbucks thinks that one should do unto to others as one would have done unto them? That being a highly evolved Life form means that there is only one Life form called Human and we are all a part of it?

    And all this stuff about cramming whatever down peoples throat. It seems ok for NOMs to go after Starbucks and force them to change even though Starbucks have done nothing to you. They have not come after you to get you to change anything. So who's doing the cramming?

  2. Posted April 28, 2012 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    Sadly, Starbucks is marginalizing Muslims, Catholics, mainstream Protestants, Mormons, and so on. It isn’t a good move. Why does Starbucks support selective sexual rights over religious liberties? It should stick to making coffee. I think that’s the issue.

  3. Posted April 28, 2012 at 2:04 am | Permalink


    Let me simplify things for you here.

    We do not wish to patronize a corporation that has indicated that its essential identity is tied up in the destruction of marriage.

    Hope this helps.

  4. Carlos
    Posted April 28, 2012 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I'm a Catholic will continue more than ever support Starbucks.

  5. OvercameSSA
    Posted April 28, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    elias -

    No one is depriving anyone of human rights; such hyperbole.

    Same-sex couples do not fit in with the definition of marriage. If same-sex couples want special rights, there are plenty of legal avenues to do so without redefining marriage, be it amendments to adoption laws, or the creation of a union of non-procreating couples that the government and society might find value in.

    Do you think that women are being denied human rights by not being allowed to use the men's room?

  6. Louis E.
    Posted April 28, 2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    "Human rights" do not include the treatment of all decisions people make as if they were equally wise.The necessary enforcement of preferential status for the type of human relationship necessary for the perpetuation of human existence in no way infringes legitimate rights claims.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted April 28, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink


    Throughout history no nation that has ever been stupid enough to afford civil rights protections based soley on what individuals like to do has ever survived.

    "it is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins" Benjamen Franklyn

    I for one will not fight in defense of this nation if it ever codifies protections for sexual deviants.

  8. Skooter McGoo
    Posted April 28, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Fun fact: After 4 weeks, @dumpstarbucks by the National Organization for Marriage has yet to achieve number of signatures that 'Thanks @Starbucks' effort got in 48 hrs. Support Starbucks =647,575 / Boycott Starbucks =32,526
    Telling how the hypocrites that say they boycott Starbucks to protect their religious faith are still using Microsoft computers, Apple iPhones, Google, CBS, Nike, Nationwide Insurance, Time Warner, Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Xerox and any # of products that are made by the companies that stated the same support for equality that Starbucks does.
    People will often forget what you say, but they will never forget how you made them feel. In the words of Mr Schultz...... Onward into history.

  9. Scrounger
    Posted April 28, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    @Skooter, You forgot Bank of America. They just began issuing a HRC Visa Card. Shop for Equality!

  10. Posted April 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink


    Then, I would assume, you support the boycott then? After all, your argument seems to suggest it is working out well for the marriage corruption movement.

    Heh heh heh.........:-)

  11. Posted April 28, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    NOM uses Linux, Ace.

    --Victor Golf Charles

  12. Bob
    Posted April 28, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Victor: Bull. And NOM aggressively uses Facebook, which was co-founded by an openly gay man who is engaged to legally marry his partner.

  13. Posted April 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Heh heh heh.

    Our marriage corruption activists seem to be rather upset with our supposedly ineffective SBUX boycott.

    Our boycotts will be tactical, designed to advance our cause, and will be advanced or withdrawn as best suits the tactical situation.

    As for SBUX, I think they are going to be really really sorry they picked this fight, when all is said and done 🙂

  14. eliasasm
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Rick, 'marriage corruption activists' is really an absurd label. Why would someone who wants to be a part of the marriage institution want to corrupt what it is?
    If you have payed attention to all the anti-gay boycotts you will see that they have had no effect. They just make you all look silly. Did you know that alot of anti-gay groups are disbanding because they are not working? More and more people everyday are seeing that all this anti-gay stuff is pointless because more and more people are realizing that all the fear promoted by groups like NOM is not rational. Fighting a war against an enemy that doesn't exist is absurd. BTW did you know that NOM is listed as a hate group. No pro-gay groups are on that list.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink


    "'marriage corruption activists' is really an absurd label'"

    "Marriage Corruption" is a far more accurate discriptive than 'Marriage Equality" ever was.

    "Marriage Equality" is an assertion that the institution of "Marriage" is in someway devisive; whereas "Marriage Corruption" is a statement of fact that traditional "Marriage" is a common good; a common good that is under assault by those looking to pervert its intent.

    Corruption: impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity.

    Your procilvity is the very definition of a corrupting influence. It is immoral, depraved, and an impairment of integrity

  16. Mark
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Elias, the SSM movement is, at its core, is designed to intimidate anyone who disagrees with their new defn of 'marriage'. They label those who disagree 'bigots' or 'bullies.' In my own experience as a graduate student, I've received several hateful comments on Facebook, as well as a personal hate email in which a fellow student told me not to talk to him outside of class, purely because I'm a Christian, and support a Christian idea of marriage. Additionally, before I even arrived at this university, another student told other students that I 'hate' gays, & encouraged them to marginalize me, ensure I was uninvited to social events, and encouraged them to defriend me on social media.

    This, from the forces of 'tolerance.' But these actions are emblematic of the SSM movement. The goal is to dehumanize supporters of traditional marriage, and demonize them across a wide variety of media.

    If NOM is listed as a hate group, it's by the Southern Law Poverty Center, which long ago gave up any credibility as a resource. By their definition, if you support traditional marriage, you're guilty of a hate crime. It's an absolute joke. NOM's not promoting fear, but simply defending marriage from an arbitrary redefinition by a minority. This minority, in fact, is advancing a moral argument based on nothing; their position is that they should be allowed to redefine marriage, to the exclusion of other minorities who would do the same, such as polygamists. It's an absurd position; hence their reliance on ad hominem attacks, the 'anti-gay' comments, the 'bigots' & 'bullies' comments, which are shopworn, inaccurate, and offensive.

    In fact, more and more people are waking up and realizing that they will be targeted by these forces. That this movement will go after their kids in schools. They're realizing that they're not bigots, but this counterfeit marriage definition to suit a very vocal, very small minority, is an absurdity. That children deserve to have a mother and a father. And that the hateful actions of this movement are characteristic of who the people are, & indicative of what's in their hearts.

  17. Paul Mc
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    @Rick- "Our boycotts will be tactical, designed to advance our cause, and will be advanced or withdrawn as best suits the tactical situation."


    You mean some kind of double speak, 'when we lose, we win', kind of thing?

    How is losing winning?

  18. Adina Hoshour
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Giving up a cup of Starbucks coffee is a small price to pay to stand in support of traditional marriage. I won't have a dime of my income spent by Starbucks to fight the defense of marriage.

  19. Posted April 29, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    "BTW did you know that NOM is listed as a hate group. No pro-gay groups are on that list."

    Well of course not! Who do you think made the lists? (Hint: they are all promote gay identity politics).

  20. TC Matthews
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    NOM isn't on any hate list that I am aware of.

  21. TC Matthews
    Posted April 29, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    not that it matters... anyone can make lists of their political foes.

  22. Gina
    Posted April 30, 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    I Love how the "Tolerant" you know the Gay-rights activists, are the least tolerant!!!!! Oh and no political agenda? Like hell they don't have one!!!!! What cracks me up is knowone is or can stop homosexuals from being together, that is between them and God, why do they feel the need to redefine the way GOD defined marriage? BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!!!! I could see them getting their panties in a bunch if they weren't allowed to be together at all!!! So, yeah this is all very political!!!!

  23. Posted April 30, 2012 at 2:19 am | Permalink

    Paul Mc:

    You ask, "when is losing, winning"?

    I suppose the best authority on that subject would be HRC, which has been demolished in every single election it has ever fought, and yet still pulls hundreds of millions out of the pockets of its gay cash billionaire enablers.

    We do not know much about losing, Paul, since we have never lost an election.

    We have been temporarily betrayed by politicians and judges, but those folks tend to have a short political.judicial half-life after betraying marriage.

    Ask the 3 Iowa Supreme Court justices.

    Ask the 4 NY Republican traitors.

    They know very well what the difference between winning and losing is.

  24. Katherine Harms
    Posted April 30, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    To all the commenters who call same-sex marriage a basic human right, I say NO. There are two ways to look at marriage. One way is to study history. For as long as history has been recorded, marriage has been the union of a man and a woman. In some cultures there have been multiples of man or woman, but the union between a man and a woman was the core value.
    The other way is to look at the revelation of God's creative work in the Bible. At the beginning, God sanctified the union of a man and a woman. God did not give Adam another man for his companion.
    The word "marriage" has a meaning -- the union of a man and a woman. Homosexual cohabiting or union or etcetera is not marriage. I personally believe it is a sin, but i don't think our culture needs to enforce my view of sin. The culture does, however, need to enforce the meaning of the institutions that preserve humanity and protect children. There are many blessings within the family. One of the blessings is children. Family has a unique role in the protection and upbringing of children by a man and woman who are their parents, legally if not also physically. People engaged in homosexual unions have a right to their own choice, but they do not have the right to impose that choice on children. Children need to be reared in real families.
    People who choose homosexual behavior are free to do so as far as I am concerned, but they do not have a right to try to change the definitions of marriage and family and destroy those institutions in the process.

  25. Chairm
    Posted April 30, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Excellent comment, Katherine Harms.

    When an SSMer refers to human rights and the human being, it suffices to note that the nature of humankind is two-sexed and that each of us is born equal of a man and a woman.

    And your point about choice: the choice to form a same-sex relationship (sexualized or platonic) is a liberty exercised not a right denied by the law that recognizes marriage as the union of husband and wife.

    The societal significance of the husband-wife union far exceeds that of this or that type of one-sexed scenario.

  26. Living Straight
    Posted April 30, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Too bad another coffee house hasnt publicly come out and defended marriage they would more than likely surpass starbucks in a matter of weeks.
    I havent shopped at Starbucks in years after I was offended by a message printed on one of thier coffee cups denouncing Christians.

  27. Deon the Patriot
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Give me Scientific Proof that 'gays' are in fact born this way, then I'll believe it otherwise i'm going to stick to thinking that this is Completely A Lifestyle Decision made entirely on their part!

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.