Welcome to the DumpStarbucks.com News!
On your way to work, you roll into a local coffee shop to grab coffee for your co-workers. When you get to work, one of them notices that this week you didn't buy Starbucks coffee and asks why. You share with them about the DumpStarbucks.com campaign and that you believe that children have a right to a mother and a father and the co-worker responds, "Hey, all they are trying to do is support diversity."
Diversity is an unassailable corporate buzzword. What do you say?
What is Diversity?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, diversity is, "the condition of having or being composed of differing elements," or, "an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities."
Diversity, by definition, requires differences to be present. Within Starbucks there are at least two groups of employees. Those who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and those who support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex. Supporting workplace diversity cannot be about choosing just one side.
Frank Turek said it best in his interview with the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance.
I am open to working with people of all sexual orientations or political views. In fact, that is what inclusion and diversity should be about. That, despite the fact that you inevitably might disagree with people over certain political, moral, or social issues, you will work together with them in a very cordial and professional manner. That's what inclusion and diversity should be. It's not that way anymore. You know what it is now? "If you do not agree with my narrow political view that same sex marriage must be put into law you are a bigot, you're a homophobe, and you need to be fired." That's where we are right now, and the reason for that is that Christians are silent.
So what do you say? Diversity requires that we accept that others will feel and believe differently and do not reject them for those differences. Instead we work toward our business goals together in a workplace appropriate fashion. Starbucks has failed to support diversity by choosing sides in the marriage debate.
Two things you can do this week:
As I write this we have just passed the 40,000 signature mark on the DumpStarbucks.com pledge! And as Brian mentioned this morning, we want to reach at least 50,000 signatures before we launch our next round of advertising to expand DumpStarbucks.com.
-
Please forward this email on to five people who you believe support marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Just say, "Hey, I thought you might be interested in hearing about this. Check it out and let me know what you think." Help us reach 50,000 signatures!
-
Help us keep up the pressure on Starbucks through their social media platforms. Log on to the Starbucks Facebook page and leave a message or give them a tweet @Starbucks and ask them,
Why have you disrespected the views of millions of customers and thousands of employees by endorsing same-sex marriage and fighting to destroy the federal Defense of Marriage Act? Visit www.dumpstarbucks.com to make your voice heard.
With over 30 million Starbucks followers on Facebook and 2.5 million followers on Twitter your message can alert thousands of people to Starbucks' support for same-sex marriage.
What happens when "diversity" runs amok?
You get situations like this in Great Britain where a blogger was charged by the Advertising Standards Authority with "homophobic" and "offensive" advertising for publishing the ad below on his blog.
DumpStarbucks.com in the news!
CulturalPolluters.org has named Starbucks as a Cultural Polluter—highlighting their stance in support of same-sex marriage as one particular reason for the cultural polluter rating.
Have a great week!
27 Comments
"Cultural Polluters?" another far right religious fringe group. "starbucks caves to the immoral minority" so much for NOM's "gay people are free to live their life" shtick.
Luckily, the media has wised up, this is the religious war in gays.
Pete,
A war you declared; you drew first blood.
The boycott doesn't seem to be working.
More absurd twisted logic from the NOMers. The diversity is about those who support marriage equality vs. those who do not. Their support of diversity is present in their acknowledgment that some of their employees and patrons are LGBT. Starbucks supports the notion that those employees and customers have committed relationships and families that deserve the same civil rights and protections as their heterosexual counterparts (whom Starbucks also support). When a corporation seeks diversity among its employees, their goal is to employ people of color. Imagine criticizing them using Frank's logic: by having policies that encouage the hiring and retention of minority employees, they are working against diversity because their policies exclude those who don't believe that people of color should be given equal opportunities in employment.
*vs those who do not?
NOM is promoting a website that equates providing beer to Pride celebrations as "cultural pollution". That website is just flat out anti-gay - full of animus and a clear desire to erase LGBT people from society. Keep showing your true colors, NOM. Another day, another step closer to hate-group designation.
What's wrong with being anti-Gay? "Gay" is a political affiliation. "Gay" isn't a person, and it's not an immutable trait or traits. There are many who don't agree with its identity politics. And that's ok--we live in a diverse society. We tolerate a lot of political philosophies we don't personally agree with. That's not the same as promoting some kind of genocide.
They claim "Gay" because they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the true descriptive to their proclivity; addiction.
Daughter - What are you on, seriously? You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Sexual orientation is not a behavioral choice, I don't know how many time you need to be told that.
Being gay means that one's sexual and affectional orientation is towards members one's own gender. Are many LGBT people's political identities influenced by their sexual orientation? Yes, and it's people like you who made it that way. I just have to shake my head at someone who will promote an agenda that has the primary goal of politically disenfranchising people based on their sexual orientation then turn around and criticize people for their political identity being influenced by their sexual orientation. Truly stunning.
Addiction, Randy? Dude, get some counseling.
Sexual orientation and "gay" are not the same thing. Behaviors and political identity are choices. Everyone is accountable for their own choices. I support the right of all adult males and females who are not close kin to marry. Their sexual orientation or political orientation are not eligibility requirements for marriage, as is just.
14th A said, "You're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts."
Agreed.
"Sexual orientation is not a behavioral choice."
Agreed. But behaviors are always a choice.
Not all people who engage in homosexual behavior are same-sex attracted, nor do they all identify with gay identity politics. Not all individuals with same-sex attraction are "gay," nor do they all participate in homosexual behavior. Many who are "gay" may both have SSA and participate in homosexual behavior, but there may be those who are neither, and who identify with gay identity politics. Since being "gay" is a choice, there is a wide variety of people with varying orientations who may choose to identify with that political entity/philosophy. There's no hard and fast immutable trait, so there's no real boundary on "gay." For example, if I declare that I'm "gay," who has the authority to tell me I'm not?
If I don't promote gay identity politics, then I can't very well be promoting others to do so. Promoters of gay identity politics promote that identity, by trying to convince others with SSA that they are victims who need special protections. That's nothing I'd endorse. I think all citizens should be treated equally without regard for their private orientations or political persuasions. And, I believe every citizen has a choice as to how they behave, and must be accountable. Gay identity politics promotes the idea that people are slaves to their passions and cannot control their choices. You demonstrated that victimization mind set when you blamed me for others' choice to be "gay." So, who is it that is "driving" those with SSA into the arms of the LGBTQ identity politics? We live in a free society, where citizens can choose their affiliations.
NOM isn't politically disenfranchising anyone. NOM supports marriage between a man and a woman. If you can find any statements from NOM, wherein they promote legislation that specifically requires a person's political persuasion to be made public in order to acquire a marriage license, or to divulge their sexual orientation, or to divulge their sexual behavior in order to acquire a marriage license, please do so. If you cannot, we must conclude you are simply tilting at strawmen and red herrings at the expense of reason, tolerance, or equality.
Daughter,
From dictionary.com:
gay[ gey ]
adjective gay·er, gay·est,
1. homosexual.
Who's trying to redefine words now?
14th,
Addiction and Denial.
Addiction: a state of physiological or psychological dependence on a potentially harmful drug
Denial: a state of mind marked by a refusal or an inability to recognize and deal with a serious personal problem
Changing the meaning of words will not change the truth of your proclivity 14th.
Randy, I have no doubt that you're intimately familiar with the concept of denial.
"The British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell has argued that the term gay is merely a cultural expression which reflects the current status of homosexuality within a given society, and claiming that "Queer, gay, homosexual ... in the long view, they are all just temporary identities. One day, we will not need them at all.""
The word was first co-opted in the mid 1990's in an attempt to lend an appearance of acceptability to that which is universally viewed as unacceptable.
Actually, according to dictionary.com, there are 5 possible definitons of the word "gay," including, "having or showing a lively mood, " or slang for "awkward, stupid, or bad." I'm guessing you'd reject the last definition. Myself, I prefer the "having or showing a lively mood," definiton. But at any rate, you have options.
Definition #2 is also legit. Choices, choices.
How about explaining what political affiliation has to do with defining marriage?
High five, 14th Amend!
As for DoE. What's wrong with being anti-Christian? "Christian" is a religious affiliation. "Christian" isn't a person, and it's not an immutable trait or traits.
Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized.
Has anyone pointed out the fact that they have been working on this for months now and they have 40,000 signatures that is literally nothing. In Wisconsin, they needed 500,000 signatures just to have a recall election and that is just Wisconsin.
There's nothing wrong with being "anti-Christian" from a civic p.o.v., as long as as citizens recognize and support Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of religion; not all religious are Christian; there are many wonderful citizens who adhere to other faiths.
Bryce brings up an excellent point: Being Christian is a wilfull affiliation, a choice. That's the beauty of it--if we were coerced idnto being Christian, there would be no opportunity to become a better person; being Christian invites change, an opportunity to learn self-discipline, to practice Charity, to purge weaknesses. Some political/philosophical beliefs popular right now claim that people can't change their nature, control their behavior, or claim that there is ever any reason to do so--a real acquiesence to tyranny. Thank heaven being Christian isn't a person, and it's not immutable. That makes all the difference.
To 14 @ 9 - " I just have to shake my head at someone who will promote an agenda that has the primary goal of politically disenfranchising people based on their sexual orientation then turn around and criticize people for their political identity being influenced by their sexual orientation."
Really? Who took your vote away and disinfranchised you? Even if SSM is outlawed in all 50 states as it should be, you will still have your vote. Geez 14 you're such a twit.
Skooter McGoo,
there is no justification for a state issuing marriage licenses except as a means of guaranteeing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them.
Leehawks - Political disenfranchisement is not limited to voting rights. For example, it also describes efforts to keep members of a particular group of people from holding public office. Now, you're not enough of a twit to claim that no such efforts exist, or are you?
Also Leehawks, maybe you can confirm with Pastor Worley that he would include ballot boxes in his proposed gay concentration camps. I'm sure he would because, you know, your side has no intention of disenfranchising gays and lesbians.
Louis E. writes "...guaranteeing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them."
Written by a proud graduate of Maggie Gallagher's School of Circular Logic.
Who's keeping anyone from running for office? Some examples please of where this is actually happening................ Democrats are the only ones I know that don't want voter ID laws, register fraudulent voters under fake names, won't remove dead people from the rolls and always seems to have trouble counting military absentee ballots from overseas. That disenfranchises conservative voters by fraud more than anything you're talking about.
I'm a catholic not a protestant so I wouldn't confer with a reverend on any subject. As for that person's extreme comments, would you agree with those on your side that send death threats to teenagers like that girl that testified for her state marriage ballot or that girl blogger that got all those nasty threats? I bet not, so don't tar us with the crazies on our side and we won't tar you with yours. Fair enough?