Welcome to the DumpStarbucks.com News!
Last week One News Now picked up on our stories of Starbuck’s faltering stock price and the growing divide in how liberals and conservatives view the coffee chain. This past week, Starbucks faltered again as they released disappointing financial results. What is bad enough to drop their stock by nearly 10% in a single day?
Lower than expected profits forecast for the fourth quarter of 2012; lower than expected net income; lower than expected sales growth across the globe...
Is this all the result of our efforts at DumpStarbucks.com? Hardly. Has Starbucks damaged their brand by playing politics, and does that damage play a role in the company failing to meet their financial goals? Yes. Should a publically owned company be playing politics with marriage while in the midst of an economic slowdown, failing to meet analyst estimates, and trying to expand in global markets where people feel very strongly about marriage? No.
A few weeks ago on the Dump Starbucks Facebook page, we asked people to share how much they used to spend at Starbucks. Seven individuals shared estimates of how much they had spent. Those seven people reported spending over $8,200 a year at Starbucks – and that is a conservative estimate. Why is Starbucks throwing this revenue away? Because same-sex marriage is core to who they are as a coffee company?
Here is something fun and tasty for you to do this week!
Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-fil-A, recently set off a firestorm when he spoke of his support for traditional marriage. Show your support of Dan Cathy and his family by going to your local Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and sharing a chicken sandwich with your friends and neighbors.
If there is no Chick-fil-A near you where you can grab some hot waffle fries and let the Cathy family know you support them, do not worry. Simply go to www.thankchickfila.com and send them a message thanking them for showing courage, standing by their religious convictions, inspiring others, and doing so with love and grace. Not as tasty, but still a concrete way to support marriage and a brave family.
Have a great week!
16 Comments
How can you say that companies should not play politics with marriage and praise a company for taking a political stance in the marriage debate in the same post?
It's up to the companies to take stances if they want to -- you can say Starbucks is wrong and Chick-Fil-A is right, but don't pretend like you believe companies shouldn't take a stance.
@Jon,
Chick-fil-A reiterated its dedication to its Christian foundation; whereas Starbucks, and the like, adopted a political position tied to an ideology rooted in transitory popular coulter. The difference between the two is as obvious as the difference between a five-thousand-year-old ideology and an eight-year-old ideology.
Chick-Fil-A's corporate stance is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.
Jon Baker, keep up the good work and don't get watered down with gay propaganda spewing from the likes of the poster above...
Jon @ 1, are you saying religion is political issue? How is the biblical view on marriage political, do you understand your own argument?
And, WE can say Starbucks, and Gay Mills are Wrong on marriage; and Chick-fil-A is Right on marriage between one man and one woman...This isn't politics as others make it out to be, but an issue between morally right and wrong... We all have the freedom to behave right or wrong, as well as suffer the consequence for our behavior good or bad... Facing up to the consequences of your bad decisions is hard when you are trying to play the victim 100% of the time...
Supporting SSM is bad, if you want to learn about all the consequences of advocating this idea, past, present, and future, checkout NOM's archives articles on the subject. There are plenty of creditable facts on this issue.
Both Starbucks and Chik-fil-A have the right to support the causes they believe in.
We, as consumers, have the right and duty to support those merchants that support the causes we believe to be important, and to avoid or even actively disrecommend those merchants who actively oppose those causes that are important to us.
However, no one in this country has the right to abuse political power by favoring or disfavoring a business because of its support of a particular opinion. As much as I agree with Chik-fil-A and disagree with Starbucks, I would actively oppose any effort to keep a Starbucks from opening because of their support of special gay rights. I would not patronize their store, and I would ask my friends not to go there, but that's free speech. Blocking a business because of their opinion or support of a cause isn't.
@Mark,
The only problem is, so far, no politician has actually blocked Chick-fil-A from doing anything! So far, all we have a few bloviating about how CFA is not welcome in their community, which isn't at all the same as blocking them from operating.
I concur Mark...
i DUMPED THEM 2 MONTHS AGO.SAVING A LOT OF MONEY.DO NOT MISS THEM.
Dana is your hyperlink working?
We stopped buying Starbucks a couple of months ago. We love the new coffees that we have been buying, and have been saving a few bucks, as well.
I had Chick-Fil-A twice last week, and the whole family had it once. Tasty food, and we respect the company's Christian values (although we've been disappointed a couple of Sundays when we forgot the store's policy).
It is very interesting to watch the gay fascism movement's handling of this astonishing Chick Fil A story.
They are being absolutely drubbed, day after day, hour after hour, on this.
All of the attempts to walk this back?
Comically gruesome, utterly excruciating political suicide.
Now, the story has become an international one.
It is not like the HRC boys to botch something this big, this badly.
They are suddenly way, way off their game.
A very good sign.
Things must not be looking good at all in the marriage polling- for them
@LEO, I'm saying religious beliefs can directly align with political positions. A political position that is grounded in religious beliefs is still a political position.
JC must have read the same talking points as Robert, another commenter on a different post. They both are trying to perform damage control by claiming that the remarks by government officials to close CFA were mere political bloviation instead of the unconstitutional threats that they actually are. Moreover, these government hacks show the true colors of the homosexualist movement and their desire to snuff out free speech through government power. Scary stuff folks. Vote Republican.
Jon: Show me a political position that is not grounded on morality, religion, or philosophy. You just haven't thought it through, man. Secularism allows everyone to give their opinion, regardless of their philosophical premises. We vote, and decide. Not like the Native American councils of old, where decisions were made by unanimity. It's the system. If you don't like it, don't vote, and thanks for the help.
Ron said:
@LEO, I'm saying religious beliefs can directly align with political positions. A political position that is grounded in religious beliefs is still a political position.
Ron, just as I figured, you don't know what you are talking about....
In your first post about NOM's position, you said:
"How can you say that companies should not play politics with marriage and praise a company for taking a political stance in the marriage debate in the same post?"
NOM's position on praising Chick-fil-A was not based on politics but for standing up for the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. NOM is not a political group, and "as a group" do not endorse politicians for office. Nor is marriage a poliical issue; marriage is not a requirement the government do not regulate who gets married. Marriage recognized by the government via license for the sake of benefits, assets and liability issues, is voluntary. Nor was Chick-fil-A making or taking a political position on marriage when the owner said, he believes in the biblical definition of marriage as a Christian. And, in case you did not notice, Chick-fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy, is not a political figure. Anyone can call their relationship marriage wihout government or their local congress' approval. When the word "political" is used, it refers to government and government policies, politiians and political parties isues. The government did not and does not create marriage, its function to marriage "has been" supportive.
So, on that note, would you like to retract your first post?
There's a difference from an individual in a company donating to a political cause and a corporation donating to a political cause. Starbucks has made a corporate stand. Chick-fli-a has not.