Welcome to the DumpStarbucks.com News!
On March 21, 2012, the date of the Starbucks annual meeting where I queried them on their corporate support for same-sex marriage, their stock closed at a price of $53.81. This past Friday their stock closed at $51.97.
This is down from a high of $61.67 that they reached in April of 2012.
It takes a little time to make an impact when your target company has over $11.5 billion in sales.
With over 750 million shares outstanding, this drop in stock price since their annual meeting equals a loss of almost $1.4 billion in shareholder value. This drop in value comes at a time when coffee prices, a major factor in Starbucks' business expenses, are dropping.
Starbucks stock could bounce back today, and without a doubt, at nearly $62 a share, it was overvalued and our protest was only part of the equation.
What the protest has done, and what you have helped us do as one of our supporters, is start to sway the conversation. There is no longer just one side of the marriage debate telling corporate leaders that "equality" requires that the corporation take the position that the nuclear family is no longer important. Or that "diversity" demands that companies tell those employees who believe that fathers and mothers are both vital to the upbringing of a child that they are ignorant bigots.
Dr. Brayden King, a professor in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, put it best in his 2009 article, How Protests Matter:
To say that protests don't matter because they don't immediately lead to drastic social reform or fail to have direct consequences in policymaking is taking a narrow view of what protestors are trying to do. Protests matter because they make issues part of the public agenda and consciousness.
Every article, every blog post, every Facebook comment, and every tweet, both positive and negative, helps to boost this effort.
What you can do this week:
Call or email your local Christian or Catholic radio station and tell their DJs and news staff about the DumpStarbucks.com effort.
Share with them what Starbucks has done and urge them to inform their audience about the DumpStarbucks.com pledge. (You might add a plug for the www.DumpGeneralMills.com pledge as well!)
Thank you for all that you do and have a great week!
48 Comments
OMG you're gonna kill Starbucks! Oh noes!
Does it make you all happy to put businesses out of business, to fuel the hate so much that children kill themselves, to put fellow Human Beings below yourselves, to keep someone from legal protections, children from healthcare or a loving home? Does it feel good to think yourselves superior to others, to call others sinners, abominations, destructors of humanity, followers of Satan, dysfuntional, disease spreaders, pedophiles, poop eaters, predators, and on and on and on and on? But you don't hate?
Seriously, eliasasm, put a violin audio track behind your little rant and post it on YouTube under comedy. I'm sure it'll go viral.
eliasasm, you're a laugh riot!
It will continue to drop if they support the gay agenda.
This is laughable. Starbucks is up 29.94% over the last 12 months. It saw a rally from March to April of $14 or 29%. If this author, Jonathan Baker, knew anything of the market and stock price movement, he would not write this article. It is only natural that the stock would trend down after such a huge run. But it doesn't have to be true for NOM to write it. Isnt that right Jon? Overall, this stock is doing great. Take a look at its 12 month trend on any of the financial sites. Its symbol is SBUX. Now that it's cooled at a new floor of $52, it should make another run possibly breaking out of its $55 ceiling. If anything, NOM's boycott has only HELPED this stock.
Coffee prices ARE dropping? Sorry, NOM, they were dropping, but since mid-June they been rising again -- which coincides almost exactly with Starbucks' latest drop in share price. Fact check fail!
Ha ha, just kidding, NOM. I know you don't use fact checkers.
What about Google? Where's the Dump Google protest?
When does your google boycott start since they announced support for gay marriage? Go ahead and get that one started too.
NOM hâtes gay people, the businesses that promote diversity, corporations that support s-s marriage and health benefits for s-s partners/spouses of gay employees, hates school boards that teaches children acceptance of others and to love each other as you love yourself, TV shows where gay families are portrayed as "normal" and the HATE LIST goes on. What a dark and miserable negative view of life and the world.
Shane, you are on to something that really needs to be broadcast throughout the country. This was never about gay marriage, NOM hates gay people, period. Hate, not concern for children, heterosexual marriage, religious freedom, is the driving force. I guess I always knew this but the reality of NOM's real position is frightening in 2012 and your posts have struck a chord. Thank you, now, et's get to work.
For NOM's boycott to be any sort of a success you are going to have to come up with a lot more than 47,000+ votes.
And your General Mills boycott has been a flop too.
MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
General Mills (GIS) today reported results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year ended May 27, 2012.
Fiscal 2012 Results Summary
Net sales grew 12 percent to $16.7 billion
Let me just say, it is NOT anyones intention involved in this to promote HATE in any way, shape, or form. Don't be ignorant. It IS to bring light to the fact that corporations should NOT take a stance on issues if they want everyone to be a customer. If they want to limit their sales it's on them. This isn't our fault. No one hates you. I DO however believe they should remain neutral and be a business. Why are they picking a side?? They're starting the arguement. We are allowed to differ in thought and opinion. If you want to throw people in jail for their thoughts, boy, you're in for a world of hurt. If you remove one person's right to voice their opinion, you only serve to remove your own. Do what you want, I really don't care it's your life, but you can't force it on other people who don't agree. You have to be respectful and live peaceably. Businesses should stay OUT of issues if they want unaltered cash flow. Otherwise, you're putting your own head on the chopping block, ya know?
General Mills stock is rising, and Google recently came out in favor of gay marriage -globally-. Is NOM going to address either of these?
The butterfly effect: as families and marriage disintegrate, more and more citizens have to depend on Uncle Sam to be their mom, their dad, or their family, leaving more people in poverty, with less $$ to spend on overpriced stimulants, such as coffee. Choices have consequences.
14
==General Mills stock [sic] is rising...==
Really? Doesn't look that way here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GIS+Interactive#symbol=gis;range=6m;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;
14
Google ain't doin' that great, either:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/goog/interactive-chart?timeframe=6m
Garrett: thanks for the reminder. I am dumping Google (changed browsers, search engine, etc. - like Obama says: 'it's a step in the right direction', and i think he is seen as a conservative for saying that. Not.), but it serves a better purpose to point it out to them. But, by definition, Google is very automatized; it is not like NOM, where you can get a message to the staff pronto. Any ideas how to get a Google protest started?
Actually, in a declining business climate nationally or locally, any boycott will look like it is working
This post by NOM is because of the assurance by Starbuck's executives, that Starbucks was doing really well, and their decision to actively support same-sex marriage in courts and in publicity was supposed to be something to reinforce their success and connection to their customer base. But what is not well know is that Starbucks had recently appointed their CEO, after closing out 900 stores which were dragging the company down. That's why the company was doing better just at that time. i believe they ruined their company by siding in a culture war. i won't drink a drop there, and it's a rip-off anyway. i liked their rest-rooms, so i think i'll continue to use them in emergencies. Their cakes? - awful, way to sweetened with sugar on top of sugar (sugar used as a preservative).
Daughter of Eve: i always appreciate your comments. Do people realize how inexpensive a tablet of caffeine (1 gram?) is? One can get them for like 10 cents each. Compare that to a large size latté, which has about 1/3 of the caffeine. Caffeine is really cheap. It's the drink that contains it that demands a splurge. Society, on average, lacks sleep. They do not lack caffeine. Most people i know run around with sleep deprivation. It is easy to get $5 off of each.
Shane Mahaffy: How can any of us hate glad people? I mean, if they take away our rights with a smile on their faces, maybe. But, we can defend our political position very well indeed. It's the backslash that counts. Notice you can push the water in a tub one way, but then you also get a slash back. I cannot speak for NOM, but we like glad people. What's the problem?
I know I've said this before here. But to get away from the stock trends (which are always volatile in any sector), does this boycott and General Mills or any other actually Make good sense for NOM?
I just want NOM supporters to see that money is being poured down a drain. The boycotts have not caught the publics eye, there is no gathering momentum here. You might not want to scrutinise NOM actions on a message board I know, but clearly aren't getting to the public mood on boycotts.
If rising stock prices, money and profit are your measure for what is right and good for the human-being, of what is helpful and beneficial to a societies children and citizens; than its understandable that you back the redefinition of marriage, and the commercial use and encouragement of homosexuality. So many new markets and easy money to be made there.
(You can also prostitute your children; toward the benefit of their future college fund, why not. The law will be changing on that subject as well, as things go. Its all great for the western economy, Wall Street and unrestrained capitalism. And besides, whats wrong with any of it anyway?)
I don't think anyone here hates people with a homosexual preference. What we hate is when the homosexuals start messing with an institution that is the foundation of society. We believe in two genders and we believe that marriage is the institution designed to unite moms and dads with their children.
What homosexuals perceive as hatred is, I believe, a reflection of themselves; a self-hatred because they believe they have been "born" different from the vast majority of the people. The fact is, no one is born homosexual; at some point one has to decide whether to acquiesce to their homosexual urges or choose to be heterosexual.
Overcame: "at some point one has to decide whether to acquiesce to their homosexual urges or choose to be heterosexual".
Where do the homosexual urges come from? Why do some people have them and not others? Why so some choose to follow where their natural instincts lead them depsite the oppostiion of their families, their religion, their friends? What happens to your 'urges' once you mysteriously choose to be straight? Why would you lie to an opposite sex partner about your true urges?
So, what has Starbuck's policy done for itself?
Well, it's had virtually no effect on its stock. No boost:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sbux/interactive-chart?timeframe=6m
28
==Where do the homosexual urges come from?==
The sin nature. Not the Godly nature.
==Why do some people have them and not others?==
Because they rely on the standard of the sin nature, and those who have no such urges know that those urges are not the way God intended life.
==Why so some choose to follow where their natural instincts lead them depsite the oppostiion of their families, their religion, their friends?==
Homosesxuality is a facet of the sin nature where it SEEMS natural, but is not. It's a choice to rely on the sin nature.
==What happens to your 'urges' once you mysteriously choose to be straight?==
The default position is "straight," not crooked. The choice is to remain straight, as God Specially-Created Man, or to choose to go your own way, based on the sin nature standard.
Paul Mc:
Your questions are easily answered. Of course, you don't want them answered; but can be answered.
''' Where do the homosexual urges come from? ''' - from lala land? Actually, they come from an indoctrination by those already of homosexual persuasion. It is a confusion between friendship and sexuality. It is a trap of analogical reasoning - not logical reasoning - that the sexual act with the same sex is analogical to opposite-sex. It comes from the same 'place' as thoughts of incest, thoughts of child sexual abuse. It comes from the preaching of 'sexual freedom' coupled with the idea that gender is immaterial, worded in a so-called progressive language. It comes from an over-emphasis of sexuality, when there's a lot of other much more interesting things (and safer) to do in life.
'''Why do some people have them and not others?''' Some people are simply crazy. It is a vice which can become pathological.
'''Why so some choose to follow where their natural instincts lead them depsite the oppostiion of their families, their religion, their friends?''' Lots of people follow what they consider to be 'radical' actions. In fact, lots of Americans think themselves great (in their own eyes) when they go against the flow, break the rules, showcase themselves. It is like they never grew up.
'''What happens to your 'urges' once you mysteriously choose to be straight?''' There's no difference between 'straight' and 'homosx', unless it becomes a vice. So-called 'straight' (as opposed to 'crooked) also have vices: rape, sexually transmitted diseases (Herpes), incest. Once the homosx mindset is adopted, you are trapped. You are trapped into believing there's no cure, or that you need a cure. It's a trap. Homosx is a feeling of inferiority, with another man dominating you. It is also triggered sometimes by parents who traumatize their kids, or a traumatic opposite-sex relationship.
''' Why would you lie to an opposite sex partner about your true urges? ''' Would you lie to any partner about your cancer, about your Herpes, about something you have been indoctrinated to think is shameful.
If we simply see that homosx is a construct created by those who believe it but cannot prove it, we realize all of us have homosx tendencies which can develop into a vice. Once you are in that trap, it is difficult to get out. But there is always hope. Just look at things logically. If you are offended by people telling you it is a sickness, then of course, you will never cure it. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Many people have vices, which they surmount with the right kind of support. Worst scenario: if you don't consider it a sickness, you could get AIDS. Then, you gradually start turning purple, and nothing else matters.
LIttle Man, sometimes you can be confusing, and somtime I have a hard time figurig you out, but your post @ 31 is excellent! Good Job!
With the exception to the "straight" argument...
('''What happens to your 'urges' once you mysteriously choose to be straight?''' There's no difference between 'straight' and 'homosx', unless it becomes a vice. So-called 'straight' (as opposed to 'crooked) also have vices: rape, sexually transmitted diseases (Herpes), incest. Once the homosx mindset is adopted, you are trapped. You are trapped into believing there's no cure, or that you need a cure. It's a trap. Homosx is a feeling of inferiority, with another man dominating you. It is also triggered sometimes by parents who traumatize their kids, or a traumatic opposite-sex relationship.)
I agree with most of your argument except the " no difference between homo, and hetero " analogy.
OvercameSSA is a typical self-hating gay person. If he can't be happy, he doesn't want anyone else to be.
@Little Man "Actually, they come from an indoctrination by those already of homosexual persuasion."
Then how do you explain when children who grow up in a Christian household and go to a Christian school, are never taught about homosexuality and do not know any homosexuals, find out that their first crush in middle school is on another person of the same sex? I have heard this sort of story first hand, yet I am sure you must believe it is made up. If not, then please explain how it fits with your story.
Homosexuality is not a choice. It may or may not to a certain extent depend on environmental influences outside of one's control, but there are clear cases where environmental factors are not at all present and people still turn out homosexual. If this is not conclusive evidence that being homosexual is not a choice, then I don't know what is.
Explain to me who is hurt by homosexual love, and why it is immoral. Mutual consenting love is morally good.
Jon,
It all depends who is tell the story... as to whether you are making stuff up or don't have your facts straight. Because of these reasons, we must rely on research or science and you have presented none to establish a gene or that homosexuality is innate. Truly analyze what you are saying, a society could not exist if their where a gay gene. Men can't have babies and women need men to have them. Our society created 1000s of years ago was not due homosexuality unions, but heterosexuality, it would grossly be illogical to think otherwise. The LGBT group suffers from gender and sexual identity disorder that need to be treated not promoted to continue with the delusional behavior.
To even have a logical debate with an LGBT person, one must truly analyze their ability to think logically, and examine the level of disconnect from reality. I mean seriously! How do you have a sane conversation with a gay person who glorifies and worships the anus as the means to discover what love is? People these patients need personal care and perhaps medical care not a rational debate when the other party is ill from rational reasoning.
YESl Political correctness is died, let’s call this think what it truly is, sexual deviance, immoral conduct, lawless behavior, and self-gratification. Someone with these symptoms require mental reparative therapy not a façade of pretending they are OK! Now the agenda by these insane groups is to legalize all perversion and lawlessness (government sponsorship of SSSUs, and Trannies ) at the expense of the other 97% of the population how are not sodomites or homosexuals, adnormal, with most holding deeply held values to what is moral and natural behavior.
Once we have acknowledge the above facts, we are left with politicians exploiting these sick people for their money and votes to get elected or reelected; hollywood sympathizers, those who support sexual libaration; and those who have good intentions but are misguided or brainwashed from the the LGBT coolade. These are the militants that started the culture War, these are the Gorillas we must defeat, or end up like them, puppets for their master (the LGBT).
Jon, do you believe that about incest?
We'll say it's between consenting adults, and there is no potential for reproduction. Is it morally good in your eyes?
NOM, are still promoting Jitter's Coffee??? What happen?
Jon, I have asked you before what you intend to mean by the phrase "homosexual love".
In your latest comment you said:
"Explain to me who is hurt by homosexual love, and why it is immoral. Mutual consenting love is morally good."
When you added the notion of consent you invoked same-sex sexual behavior, rather than love per se.
If you assert that consensual same-sex sexual behavior is moral, ever, then, it is up to you to make the sound argument in favor.
Back the truck up. Please confirm that you were convinced by a sound argument rather than by intuition. If by intuition, then, you will need to show how sound argument stems from moral intuition. If you cannot do that much, okay, you are stuck on mere asserted moralism.
If you were convinced by a sound argument, then, please proceed by stating that argument and also stating that if it is demonstrated to be unsound you will abondon your asserted moralism on this point.
If you cannot agree to proceed in either way, then, why should your assertion be taken seriously -- by any reader interested in assessing the morality of same-sex sexual behavior?
Jitter's Coffee dumped NOM for being hateful! Gotta love it when companies take a stand!
Well, AD if what you say is true, NOM just find another business that is sympathetic to our cause. The opposition must have forced Jitters to drink their Coolade... In any event, I thought the plan to move consumers off of Starbuck's Coffee by providing an alternative supplier, with a percentage of the proceeds going towards a good cause, was an excellent idea. Continue staying creative and quick to implement new concepts to achieve your goals; this is your strength above your opposition. PROMOTE< PROMOTE, and then give your seeds (ideas) ample time to grow and bear fruit...
Breaking News:
JCPenny’s , a support of bad behavior ( homosexuality), is declining faster than we had imagined, read about it in your local business news…
Jitters and Bliss Coffee decides that anti-gay animus isn't good for business and dumps NOM. From their Facebook page:
As the first two comments above have eluded to, we are no longer connected to NOM. I do not care for SBucks for many reasons. I took an opportunity to get some of their business. Being inclusive, and loving everyone, yes, I would make another code. Will you use it?
NOM,
Apply the same intensity for your cause as the opposition. If we know the opposition is predictable, plan accordingly to defend your ideas. Since everything you do is broadcasted, expect, accept, and defend off your opponents who are watching and waiting for your every move. As an anecdote, trying to be fair and balance with an opponent who wants to destroy you is not the way to go but giving them a taste of their own medicine may be the solution…
Hi, Leo. Great to 'hear' from you. How to show the word 'homosexual' has credence? Is homosexuality the same as being effeminate, or does it depend on the copying of the opposite-sex sexual act? Who came up with the word 'homosexual' if not the persons who believe themselves to be such? How do we know who has same-sex attraction and who doesn't? We don't. Those who say, they don't have SS attraction could simply be still 'in the closet' so to speak. Then, there's the bi-sexuals (one day one way, next week the other way). When we get down to the scientific analysis, critical thinking shows no one has found the genetic or psychological cause for homosexual sexual behavior. Certainly men cannot say they were born that way, because babies are not 'sexual'. So, i think it is a question that begs for scientific scrutiny - that all of us, simply by thinking ourselves differently, can believe ourselves to have SS attraction, when it could be a opposite-sex repulsion, sexual or not. How would a scientist show only some people have SS attraction? What data would be used to show that? It is impossible to show. Yet, we assume such concept. Got to go, but will back to finish reading.
Wow, Jon, you sure ask for a lot. OK. The scientific answers are there for those who 'chose' to listen to them. I don't know everything, but i know enough to answer.
Assumption 1: '...first crush in middle school is on another person of the same sex'. You left out the possibility of previously having NEGATIVE experiences with middle-school girls, and they mature sexually earlier while boys are still bewildered by their changing voice pitch range.
Obviously, if a young boy cannot learn to override the embarrassment of putting himself at the 'service' of a girl (a very scary thing in life), he won't get far with any girl. If the experience doesn't go well, it can be terribly traumatic (and it is society's fault, because other societies have full-blown rites of passage - ours doesn't.)
There's also the rules of schools and families against getting too intimate with girls during middle school, not to mention all the pimples and wildly varying hormone levels which can make them all really self-conscious. Most young people of that age are drawn to the opposite (or same) sex out of curiosity, friendship, respect, and not because they are planning orgies.
So, yes, a boy can have a 'crush' (a fascination) with another boy. That is called friendship, and it is Biblical (see friendship between David and Jonathan). Or it could be dominance.
Now, if there are people around who have decided for themselves there is such a human type as 'homosexual', that boy can begin to suspect he might be one, though he isn't.
To run a true scientific experiment one would need to experiment on humans, and that is not allowed, by law. All one can do is interview people, and hope they do not lie just for the fun of it. I would.
Assumption 2: I can point to many children 'who grow up in a Christian household and go to a Christian school' and end up really radical, in drugs, crime, robbery, etc., because not everyone becomes a believer in Christ. In fact, having an honest face and good upbringing HELPS one to take advantage of other people. In theory, spies look just like ordinary folk. I mean, not that i have known one myself... The Christian mask can get you opportunities. That's how American companies go to third world countries and extract all their resources for pennies.
Assumption 3: You say; who... 'are never taught about homosexuality and do not know any homosexuals'. How would you know that? Because they said so? That's hearsay. Children learn a lot from friends, from hearsay, from TV, movies, and even pedophiles, even their own dreams - things they sometimes don't want to reveal. See Assumption 1.
'please explain how it fits with your story.'
OK. Very simple: We are all prone to sexuality with both opposite and same sex, given a particularly influential environment which could propel us in one or the other direction - because we already know scientifically it is not genetically based.
How do we know who is prone to homosexuality? By hearsay. A raise of hands, amazing (and ridiculous) as it may be, but we have to start somewhere. We cannot experiment with humans, and homosexuality is a legal behavior in the privacy of one's home.
Assumption 4: 'Homosexuality is not a choice.' I didn't say it was.
Alcoholism (or hooked on drugs or tranquilizers) is not a choice, in the sense that we develop a chemical dependency, and that's when it is not a 'choice', meaning we cannot easily decide otherwise.
If you are highly influenced by an inner circle (run around with the wrong kind of 'friends'), you could become so convinced of their (supposedly scientific) paradigm, you could believe you have no choice. Look at the psychology of gangs. The members believe they have no 'choice'. But one does, if one gets proper outside help, before it becomes entrenched - mentally entrenched, not biologically entrenched. This is because sexuality in civilized society is highly restricted (for good reasons). Many things are highly restricted in civilized society. One must respect people of homosexual persuasion, because they are just as valuable, as persons, to society. In art, for instance, they are even more valuable than normal, being generally sensitive type of people, but not because of what they call their 'sexual' act. In spite of it.
Assumption 5: '...but there are clear cases where environmental factors are not at all present and people still turn out homosexual.' So they say.
This may sound like news to you, but environmental factors are ALWAYS present. In fact, looking at the literature in theoretical sociology, they can explain homosexual behavior much better than the geneticists, through environmental factors.
Also, you've coined a term 'homosexual' without any scientific evidence for such animal. There's homosexual behavior or homosexual persuasion, and anyone can experiment in their privacy, but that doesn't scientifically justify coining the noun: 'homosexual'. The term begs the question. I believe there are no homosexuals nor heterosexuals. We are all in the same category. Both words are ill-defined constructs.
Mis-worded assumption 6: 'Explain to me who is hurt by homosexual love, and why it is immoral. Mutual consenting love is morally good.'
Very funny
Paraphrased: Explain to me how love can hurt.
But love is by definition what cannot 'hurt', yet there is more to love than simply not hurting the person who is the object of the love.
But homosexual love (friendship) is not the same as the homosexual so-called sexual act (not a pretty ordeal). There can be friendship (with either sex) without copulation or sodomy (with either sex).
Assumption 7: Why is love immoral? It isn't.
Why is sodomy immoral (with either sex)? Because this form of stimulation (not the sexual act) and possessiveness is much more prone to certain diseases being transmitted through the thin linings of the human colon. It is not recommended even for married couples of the opposite sex.
Historically, people stayed away from dead bodies, sick people, certain kinds of food, filth, and still their average life-span was just a few decades. Ancient societies didn't have antibiotics, as we do now; but they had learned to stay away from certain situations.
But even with antibiotics, the homosexual 'sexual' act can lead much easier to contagious AIDS (viruses), because the colon functions well to absorb fluids. Viruses can even get through condoms. In general, that's good. But when germs and viruses are introduced (whether in an enema, or water colon wash, or even a dirty finger), you might as well inject those into your blood stream.
But again, it is a free country. If it weren't for same-sex marriage impositions, we'd all get along just fine.
OK. Leo. Maybe prove the opposite to 'everyone can develop some sort of homosexual behavior', pending a conducive environment. Not possible to prove it. Yet, we assume it all the time. Bad science. And bad science brings about rhetoric, for it has no predictability and is not science at all.
For SSMers to rely so heavily on this notion of consensual "homosexual love" and to not have a ready explanation of their intended meaning, well, that ought to raise a big ole red flag for the readership here.
Wow little man. NOM should hire you.