Starbucks CEO has no tolerance for traditional marriage concept
There are plenty of other excellent coffee roasters to buy my beans from, you know? h/t to +Darin Walker on this. How 'bout it, folks.
38
34
Eric Moore's profile photoRory Glynn's profile photoDouG Molidor's profile photoO'Lanso DaCosta-Gabbidon's profile photo
139 comments
 
I just wish we had some of those others closer....
 
Never been to one of these in my life.Not going to change that behavior either.
 
I drink most of my coffee at home too....but when I'm out like I was last night and just wanted a hot cup of coffee there isn't anywhere else to go :(
 
Sigh. Making a successful protest statement isn't always easy, yes? I don't think companies ought to be getting involved in either politics or morality. They should focus on making a good product.
 
We're talking about traditional marriage +Tonni Atay  which has been between a man and a woman for countless centuries. I don't have a problem with gay people - I have gay friends.
 
I can't agree more with that statement +Peter Bromberg....I wish they would just make their product and stay out of the whole political arena. At some point it's going to be impossible to eat, drink, brush your teeth or anything else without it being a political statement.
 
Some companies, like Chick-Fil-a,  have a certain belief system at the management level, but they don''t actively promote it in shareholder meetings and tell shareholders who disagree to sell their stock and invest in another company. That's just arrogant. I'll do some more research but for now Starbucks is right at the top of my shit list.
 
That's funny....I think it's arrogant to try to manipulate people to accepting your standards. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage then don't have one. 
 
Exactly....at no time did they say they didn't want the business of those who believe in gay marriage. They appreciate business from everyone. 
Tee Powell
+
19
20
19
 
They support equality. If they have shareholders that have issues with their support of same-sex marriages, then of course they'd give them the option to cash their shares in. 
 
+Tee Powell If you own stock in a company you're free to sell it at anytime, just call your broker. What we're talking about here is an arrogant, insensitive activist stance on the part of the company CEO. Did you read the article?
 
I thought he was responding to criticism of supporting marriage equality as being bad for business. I don't see how that's being anti-traditional marriage. 
 
I've already done that in the comments above, +Tee Powell If you want to embrace diversity as a company CEO, you don't need to suggest to a shareholder that they can sell their stock and invest in another company. 
 
Wasn't he responding to the issue with the boycott because his company supported some referendum backing gay marriage? I think it's taken out of context.
 
I guess I'll say I'm against MOST marriages (people generally suck) and also against $6 coffee, white guys with filthy dredlocks making my coffee and expecting a tip, and the most insecure wi-fi in any public place on the planet.
 
I think that instead of getting into a philosophical debate about how gay people should be treated as individuals and challenging the investor's beliefs the CEO just said that that's not how they do business. If you don't like it do business elsewhere; it's not confrontational, argumentative or coercive. 
 
+Aaron McGuffin Last year, Starbucks endorsed a Washington state bill to legalize gay marriage, and released a statement saying it was "deeply dedicated to embracing diversity." The bill later became law. The company has taken a decidedly activist stance in the past year or so and that is being actively promoted by the CEO. If they want to focus on delivering  a great product and stay out of politics and morality, I'll be a big supporter. It's that simple.
 
Good for him. Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else, and anyone who disagrees can pack their bags and head to another coffee shop. They won't be missed, but eventually their bigoted, hetero-supremacist views will cause them inconveniences. That's what you get for standing against equality.
 
Gays do deserve the same rights as everyone else. And companies should stay out of politics and morality and focus on delivering a good product. So should government.
 
I support their freedom of speech just like I supported Chic-fil-la and yours. If they believe in marriage equality then I do not see how they are wrong. 
 
+Peter Bromberg How do you, as a CEO or boss possibly stay out of politics? How would you offer a benefit package for your employees that appeases both right wing groups that believe that gays shouldn't receive, for example, spousal benefits, and left wing groups that believe that they should? You can't.
 
+Peter Bromberg - Do you think Chic-fil-la should stay out of the political arena too? They've given money to anti gay marriage grips from what I hear.... 
 
What I would do, in a shareholder meeting, is simply say that the company supports diversity and avoid getting into a shooting match where emotions are virtually guaranteed  to flame over on either side. That''s not Mr. Schultz's modus operandi.
 
The article doesn't state that he told everyone in the shareholders meeting to do that. It says he told that specific person.
 
Where does it say that he did it in front of everyone? Are we reading the same poorly written article?
 
Even if he did, the argument is about stopping their support for marriage equality because the boycotting had an effect on their revenue/profits.

Therefore people should dump Starbucks because they are willing to lose money from sticking with their belief that everyone should be free to marry whoever the heck they want. 
 
This is not about +Starbucks Coffee saying they support gay marriage. This is about them saying that if you don't agree with them, then they don't want you. They said it, we are happy to comply.

Companies that believe gay marriage is wrong, don't say they don't want homosexuals buying their products. It's what's called discrimination.
 
According to a report by Forbes, Schultz seemed a bit intolerant of any Starbucks shareholders who opposed gay marriage for moral or religious reasons.

During the meeting, shareholder Tom Strobhar (who founded the Corporate Morality Action Center) pointed out that after the company voiced its support for a referendum backing gay marriage in Washington state, a boycott by traditional marriage supporters caused a drop in sales revenue.

Schultz told him "You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company" if he did not agree with the company's pro-gay marriage stand.
 
I'd probably agree that companies should stay out of politics, but for now it's nice to have allies. I will be having one of those non-traditional weddings in about six months, and I might even adopt some children after that. It's not about making a political statement. I've been married (to a woman). I didn't really care to do that with anyone again, but I fell in love. My boyfriend believes in a traditional family, which to him just means that when two people fall in love, especially when they want to think about raising children, they get married. They commit to a lifetime together, for better or worse. It means more to me now than it did when I was 20, but nowhere in my definition has the genitalia of the two involved ever had any influence. I'm rambling now, but the point is these ideas a lot of you have are hurtful to me and to families like mine. So a person of high rank at Starbucks let you know he wasn't okay with sitting by and watching you cause others to feel sub par. That must have stung. Trust me, I sympathize.
 
+Travis Sauter Good for you; I'm happy for you.  All I'm saying is that company CEOs have no business getting into activist causes or politics. It's divisive. You are a coffee company? Fine. Stick to coffee.
 
+Chris Rodenius Ummm Chick Fil A? It's his company he can do whatever he wants he has more money than you and brought Starbucks back from bad financial strains. Shultz is a great businessman so unless you own a billion dollar a year company I would stop talking like you guys know how to run one. Like it or not gay marriage is happening. It doesn't effect you so go buy your latte and be ignorant to it because its not hurting you. This company is great to its employees because of how SHULTZ runs it if you don't want to invest don't. I promise someone else will buy your shares of stock shit I'll buy them its one of the most stable stocks available. And by the way as someone who works for this company many many many gay men and women are making those drinks so for you to disagree with that choice means your disrespecting the people that get up at 3 am to pour you a cup of coffee. Its easy to see why he supports these people because many of them work behind that counter. He wants a diverse corporate culture and by standing up for his employees he create and maintains that culture. Think before you guys speak. 
 
What difference does it make what business he's in? Oh what business owners aren't allowed to have a voice? I don't remember there being exceptions under the 1st amendment for business owners. 
 
Yet here you are sharing your political ideals. A man can't just be what he does.
 
I am offended that Google+ subjected me to your bigotry in my feed. 
 
+Travis Sauter I think you may be confusing political ideas with concepts of good corporate governance my friend.  I really don't care much what Mr. Schultz' political ideas are, so long as he doesn't spend his time being a moral / political activist about them (which he does). This is a guy who also supports raising the minimum wage, which I regard as economic insanity.
 
It's totally the media spin in the article. More to lionize Schultz/Starbucks and promote "anti" gay marriage group. If these haters have Starbucks shares to sell other values may need to be checked (Greed, avarice). Wondering if the same intolerant condemnation and judgement is applied to the individual selling coffee as well? Heaven forbid someone "gay" makes or sells your coffee at wherever you decide to take your protests.
 
I dislike their coffee but I am willing to pick up an iced tea flavored with a shot of equality for the cause. Good on him for supporting marriage equality. 
 
It takes a strong person to speak out against the kind of ideas that, in their extremes, get people hurt or killed, but never in history has such speaking out led to anything bad in the long run. Quite the opposite. No matter what the context, Mr. Schultz is a hero for sticking to his guns in this case.
 
+Peter Bromberg can you read? Or did you just pick the small words, you don't think the gay men and women at chick fil a were hurt finding out the man who employs them does not believe in their cause. Whether or not you like it business is politics and corporate culture is defined by the man or women running it. How would you feel (regardless of your associations) if you were a devout christian and your businesses owner came to you're face and told you god is a joke and your beliefs and ideals are all male believe bullshit because its the same thing. He stood up for his employees, he has a vast work force and not supporting them in turn destroys employee moral and causes an over all dissatisfaction with your job I'm proud that this man stands for what he believes is morally and politically right when confronted by some idiot who has the nerve to ask these types of questions at a shareholders meeting. He didn't just outright say oh and this quarter I'm supporting gays. He was asked by some guy who runs anti gay why he supported it. He answered if you don't like it buy some dam foldgers.
 
Two things gays are:
An evolutionary deadend and contrary to the survival of the species
 
well, that is a lie. nowhere does starbucks ever say a word agains marriage between man and woman. they have nothing against that at all. they don't support /prejudice/ that leads some to intolerance and to treating others with disrespect.

the accurate title, then, is "starbucks is intolerant of ignorant hatred directed at fellow citizens."

dont be a tool. try to educate yourself. you cant be a true christian without actually....following christianity. which very clearly states you must love. and it details out what love is and what its not.

hint: its not denying things to people who make you uncomfortable.

people, just because some other people distort the writings you claim to live by doesn't excuse you from having to actually live your faith to reap its benefits. being anti-gay and denying others the benefits of marriage is in no way getting you closer to heaven.

open your eyes and hearts. its fear talking, that headline. love and fear do not coexist, love pushes fear (and its natural cohorts, intolerance, hatred, greed, and so on) right out. if those things are a large part of your life, it means you don't yet have The Word and are using your mortal time here to promote what you would see as the devil's work if you saw it clearly.

lying -- as that title does -- is widely recognized as being a favorite of...who? pop quiz.



 
I've really developed a lower tolerance for people who talk down to me or who devolve into ad-hominem tactics to push their points. Mr. Krpan is history.
 
why on earth should a citizen not take a stand on something just because he runs a successful business? how silly! are you saying only people with no money and influence of any sort should do that?

also, if the quote is truly that they can invest elsewhere, that not quite the same as a directive.

these are not the same:

"if you're cold, you can put on a coat."

and

"put on this coat."

they are similar, sure. but not the same. and no one should fail to walk their talk if they can manage it. what good would an religion or social belief have if you couldnt actually live by it?

when i was shopping for 50 people i definitely went organic and local. why? because it had more impact than when i shopped for one and of course -- of course! -- i wanted to use my time wisely.

i cant really get it why so many choose to spend much time being about what others they will never meet are doing (unless those others are robbing or imprisoning them withno meetup needed).

and criticising someone for living their ideals? because they have a business?

what i dont get is this: dont you see that you wont live on earth forever and that the time you waste being a disapproving busybody is time not spent on your own life. your life: the only one over which you ever really have final influence.

you dont own others and they would be insane to live anything but what they actually believe. just as you do, right?

sbux would be well-served to make better coffee tho. i cant argue with that, lol.
 
Well, if it only takes buying a decent cup of coffee to promote social equality in our country, I'd happily pay $1.95. Now if only this type of corporate-sponsored social change could've occurred in the 60s with African American social equality, or during the reign of slavery, or the woman's rights movement, or during the immigrant harassment of the 1700-1900s, or with the abuse of Native Americans/Trail of Tears, or all of the other situations where powerful bigots figured they need not include all of mankind into their share of "created equal".
 
Love all the people saying they support diversity, then continuing to bash all other opinions than their own. As far as i'm concerned, people have the right to be racist, gay, anti-gay, communist, concervative, liberal, etc. Not saying that I necessarily agree with those views, but if you truly supported diversity, you would stay the hell out of other people's business and let them believe what they want.
 
Google doesn't tell people who disagree with them to take their money elsewhere...
 
Folks I have no problem with people who disagree with either me or anyone else on this thread. But rambling, incomprehensible, lengthy comments are going into the trash can.
 
+Kelly Ellis I fail to see how anyone has said anything about how someone should lead their lives. And that is precisely what I said. Everyone should just leave each other be, and believe whatever they think is right. And no, there is no irony there. I said let them believe what they want to "believe". If they were to act on that believe by forcing it on other people, that is when it would become wrong.
 
+Kelly Ellis I watched the entire video, my dear. What I'm talking about is Mr. Schultz' track record. It started long before this particular shareholder meeting. If he wants to make coffee, that's fine. Let him focus on that and stay out of the public activism role. It makes me want to start a coffee roasting company. 
 
Precisely +Kelly Ellis someone didn't like their direct support of changing laws regarding marriage and he told him that he should take his money elsewhere because Starbucks is going to support gay marriage and there's nothing that's going to change that.  That person therefore represents all people who are uncomfortable with how Starbucks has involved itself in getting the government into the bedrooms of homosexual relationships.  So their response to people like me is to take my money elsewhere.  I'm simply doing what they want...
 
Benefits have nothing to do with this...why should benefits be wrapped into monogamy...it doesn't make sense. However, heterosexual relationships do have a unique factor inherent in  that they tend to generate children. To acknowledge that unique trait of heterosexual relationships and to hold heterosexuals responsible for children that they may bring into the world by binding them into monogamous relationships makes sense.
 
" I don't think companies ought to be getting involved in either politics or morality."

Really, +Peter Bromberg? A quick Google search revealed that you had no problem supporting Chick-fil-A after its President voiced support for traditional marriage. Hypocrite. 
 
2/10, bad troll is bad. You can't be serious with this, can you? 
 
+Peter Bromberg just read ur profile. libertarian? isnt that supposed to entail "mind your own business" on the social stuff?

i was surprised to see you program and belong to mensa. usually i can see intelligence easily because bright people regularly express /themselves/, which i saw no evidence of in this exchange from your side. so far ive seen you repeat standard positions of a certain group and not a thing else. i also usually see less shortsighted, narrow thinking with intelligence (not always but usually).

let me demonstrate thinking (vs repeating). you called some liberal people "holier than thou." leaving aside the hypocrisy of you skirting the ad hominum line when you profess dislike for it on your profile, i will first note that it requires no actual thinking to call liberals (or anyone who has a stated moral component to their reasons and actions, justified or not) "holier than thou."

but wait! i think most will agree that jesus was in fact the ultimate liberal. his positions were anti-authority mist (maybe all) of the time, and would apply with no modernization needed right now. according jesus it /is indeed/ holier to care about others beyond yourself, to state this openky, and to act on it.

liberals do this much more than conservatives. i wont bother to give examples because they abound and are hard to miss if one isnt reventing onself from seeing them.

so ... well, people who are helping others -- others who are poor or simply not influential nor able to directly do something in return -- well, they in fact /are/ more holy than those not doing so.

see what i did there? instead of merely repeating what others might say to rebut you, no thought needed, i read your words, gave some actual thought, and then wrote the result. on the spot.

its kinda cool, and has uses beyond coding....
 
I do absolutely think that encouraging heterosexuals into monogamous relationships makes sense.  They are unique.  They generate our future citizens and therefore the society absolutely needs to be involved in what they do.  It doesn't make sense to be involved in homosexual relationships.  They don't need monogamous relationships.

I don't have a problem with extending benefits to anyone.  I don't have a problem with changing how we do things with hospital visitation and property ownership and what not.  These things do not need to be unique to marriage.  However, the government absolutely does not need to be involved in changing marriage to be defined as "the temporary public declaration of the infatuation between two persons".  I fight for the traditional definition of marriage which I would see as "The permanent bonding of a man and a woman for the good of the children."
 
+Peter Bromberg: The fact of the matter is Starbucks is on the right side of history and as such their positioning themselves as progressive will only solidify themselves into the social structure of our soon-to-be future. Will they lose some customers now? Perhaps. But, they just aligned themselves with 52+% of the country.

Starbucks is moving on, just like 60s era Coca-Cola (which funded the NAACP, and the CEO wrote on how desegregation would not only improve the country, but also increase the company's revenue.)
 
i hope the supreme court reads a biology book before they make their decision on the gay marriages. i think the answer is right there.
 
The irony is that marriage of the 'state' itself isn't recognized by the Church if you're a Christian. Christians shouldn't care whether or not the state allows it. I wish we all would stop trying to enact laws that impact others based on our own beliefs. This is supposed to be a free country.

Who the state marries has nothing to do with my salvation and no impact on my faith. Quite the opposite, allowing two grown adults to join in a contractual engagement that helps protect them legally is a minimum that any court should allow.

PS: I believe in Christ and believe I'm a Christian (although I have a looooong way to go).
 
No, because even if heterosexuals are "infertile" they might still generate children. I'd also say that heterosexuals who enter into a "marriage" where they never intend to have children are not really entering into marriage in the first place. At least in the case of infertility it is not of their choice and if they could have children they'd presumably be open to it.

I agree that our current laws don't make sense.  This leads people to wonder why there's such opposition to opening it up to include homosexual relationships.  The problem is that we have already so terribly injured the societal understanding of marriage that it basically has become "the temporary public declaration of the infatuation between this man and this woman."  Which of course makes people wonder why it has to be a man and a woman.

The problem is that we've destroyed the institution and it has lead to huge societal problems where children are not being taken care of by those who brought them into the world.  This means that their care then falls to the rest of society.  We have huge increases in out of wedlock pregnancy, child abandonment, child abuse, and so on and so forth.  All of this naturally flows from our breaking marriage into the current definition.  To continue that by removing the man and woman from marriage isn't going to help.
 
+Peter Bromberg If you don't believe that two people who love each other should be allowed to marry—or maybe even just have a civil union—then sell the stock and/or don't go to Starbucks. The always-present line will be just a little shorter, and tolerant people will appreciate your absence.

Question: Are you at least okay with the interracial marriage thing? I mean, it is 2013. That's kinda the 1960s parallel here. Just trying to figure out how far on the wrong side of history you are.
 
+Randy Turner, I completely agree. Seeing as homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1,000 species, arguments that it is 'unnatural' are obviously wrong. 
 
You know how it goes +Daniel Baker . Win some, loose some. I don't know what this Chick-A-Fil thing is, but I know Starbucks here in Sweden. And by his actions, Schultz and Starbucks has won me as a customer. I have visited Wayne's Coffee before, but next time I'm in the mood for some caffeine, Starbucks it is. 
 
Anthony Tordillos it's quite evident that it was not the intent of the architect of the human body that people should be gaying around with one another. Seems that the gay people have made a lot of misinformed decisions. If the Supreme Court says they agree with gay marriages then that just leads to more bad lifestyle decisions.
 
+Randy Turner The only threat to marriage I have witnessed is divorce.

If a couple want to make a permanent, legally binding obligation to each other, who am I to say they have to be opposite sexes?
 
I need to go to the library and read up on old newspapers, +Brian Hanifan , because I totally missed that huge increase in pregnancy, child abandonment, abuse etc, you are talking about. Totally missed it when Denmark legalized first divorce, then registered partnership, and finally marriage. Come to think of it, I also missed the upswing here in Sweden. Silly me. 
 
+Greg Peterson so if all your friends are gonna jump off a cliff I guess your gonna jump off with them
 
+Peter Bromberg Shultz responded to a share holders line of questioning, he did not broach the subject voluntarily. He told the share holder that if he could find a better return than 38%, he was free to move his money.

I'm not a Starbuck's customer because I don't care for their coffee. But I agree with the way they treat their employees and their social values.
 
+Peter Bromberg I think you are misquoting the CEO. What he suggested was that if the shareholder didn't like the rate of return he received on his stock last year, he should invest elsewhere, not if they didn't agree with the support of diversity, they should invest elsewhere. Semantics
 
Coffee at Starbucks is just great can't find better anywhere else
 
We need more people like him... people can express feeling about anything they consider out of their religion or polotical statement but I think it is time people without political or religious affiliation also express themselves in the other way.
 
Frankly I don't care if the government calls it marriage or civil union, just so long as it is the exact same word in every single law as it is for the current marriages. History has shown separate but equal does not work.
 
"Many who joined the boycott of Starbucks last year were dismissed as bigots, even though the boycott did cause revenue to drop."

This article is pure nonsense, as exemplified by the above sentence. Of course everyone who joined that protest were bigots, and I can't see why the protest causing a revenue drop would change that?!

Good on Starbucks for standing up against discrimination, they have sure increased my brand loyalty.
 
I support gay marrage , so they can b as miserable as straight married couples 
 
Oh so its ok fom them to talk about same sex marriage but not ok for CFL to talk about regular marriage? I bet you wont see any protests over a shitty cup of burnt coffee!!!! Its beyond ridiculous. ...

From Webster dictionary.
 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage

Notice it says "relationship LIKE that of a traditional marriage" it doent say as in the same or the same as or close to it.. its said LIKE. That doesnt qualify it as being the same thing.

I think we need to change the term and name of the union of a gay couple. Call it Unity or Sealed or Joined but it should not be named marriage. Then legalize it under that newly defined term if need be.
Its all in the name...

Merriam-Webster added the secondary meaning for marriage in 2003, even before gay marriage was legalized anywhere in the country. Whereas the company's dictionary editions prior to 2003 stated no mention of same-sex marriage, the latest version now defines marriage also as "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

This was taken from....
http://m.christianpost.com/news/dictionary-redefines-marriage-to-include-same-sex-couples--37597/

Despite it coming from a christian site. Up until 2003 the definition of such word stated since its inception that it is between a man and a woman period!!!!!

 
You've got to stand for something or you will fall for anything.@peterbroomberg
 
I agree, +Peter Bromberg! I'd be furious if heads of business like Schultz had spoken out against sexism, racism, and in support of interracial marriage back in the day!

Oh wait, no I wouldn't.

Also, for the people arguing in favor of "traditional marriage", last I checked, atheists, those who do not want kids, those who cannot have kids, and felons, can all get married -- to borrow a phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
Starbucks chooses diversity and I choose Starbucks.
 
This is pure hypocrisy, support Chick fil A becuse they support my views and values, don't buy Starbucks because they try to influence people, look Chick-fil-A keep doing business as usual and Starbucks will stay in business too.
 
I have my own business I would know say anything about my religious or anyone else ideas it just damage my business .
 
Well done Mr. Schultz, you are a doing an excellent job! 
 
So we're supposed to boycott Starbucks because they support gay marriage? That's ludicrous. 
 
Purely for reason's sake, I think the point is valid. When you ascend to a position of authority over a large number of people, you bear the weight of focusing on that responsibility. Your personal views on the rights of a certain group in society should be left to personal blogs and clarified as being personal views non-binding to the larger company body or shareholders. While I could care less about the fight over marriage rights, I do agree with his (OP) reasoning.
 
In reading the article you linked to this post, I see where SB supports gay marriage, but I didn't see where they are against heterosexual marriage.

I do like the idea that boycotting an establishment or selling their stock us a good way to send the a message. I think that is the only way big companies will listen...when their pocketbooks are affected.

Go get 'em! 
 
You're free to boycott whoever you want but being a dick that thinks my gay nephew shouldn't be allowed the freedom to marry anyone unless he has your permission shows me that you really suck at understanding this whole freedom and pursuit of happiness deal.
 
How did the author of that examiner article jump from Schultz supporting all marriage to having "No tolerance for traditional marriage"? Sounds like I am going to enjoy my bigot-free latte tomorrow even more!
 
"Traditional Marriage Supporter"? HAHAHAHA...oh, I get it now.  They meant "Homophobe".
 
+Peter Bromberg since I don't know any liberal person who is against gay marriage really I'll venture a guess here that you are a conservative right wing nutso right?

Well you can't whine and bitch how companies should not interfere with politics when:

A) You supported your republicans to vote that companies ARE people.. So not only you are a bigot, you are also a hypocrite. 

B) You didn't have problems with that fellow biggot and disgusting human being from Chick-fil-A when he was protesting gay marriage as well. I bet you went to support them and stuffed your ass with their chicken

Not only that you are a biggot, you are a miserable hypocritical human being. There is no place for disgusting people like you in the modern civilization. You are a dying breed and thank god. 

You should be ashamed as religion you support and Jesus Christ would have been ashamed of disgusting people like you.

YOU represent everything that is wrong in today's america.. Intolerant, racist, bigoted ass-wipes. 
 
In 20 years, those that stand against equality for gays will look as foolish and mean-spirited as those that fought against civil rights in the 60s, those that fought against women's suffrage in the early 20th century and those that fought against ending slavery in the 19th.

You want to stand on the wrong side of history and actually fight to perpetuate discrimination? Enjoy your place in history's hall of shame.
 
+Scott Mortimer +Daniel Dillon there's a Dunkin Donuts over by the witch burning station. Watch out for that black plague because I think that didn't work for like 1/3 of Europe. 
 
The side that's for moral decay in America drink their coffee at Starbucks 
 
Lol lots of great conversation here.. But if you are a Christian you should love whoever, wherever, whenever.. If your not then this whole topic is irrelevant.. 
 
Love is telling your friend that he/she has a booger hanging out of their nose
 
Love is not picking one sin and going after it because it makes you uncomfortable.. 
 
Well this sin is presently on the front burner cause the Supreme Court has to vote on it
 
Right because bigots have made it law in the past.. Just like they made it a law for 'colored folk' to have a separate water fountain to drink out of.. 
 
I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the situation. Your car has instructions on how to operate and maintain it. If you put oil in the gas tank it's not going to operate correctly
 
That's exactly right.. Not allowing marriage equality is that oil
 
Well so far on this thread I've seen a bunch of people call me a bigot, tell me I'm on the wrong side of history, and call me anti-gay. Also  a couple of distinct ad-hominem attacks, a couple of which I've had to delete from the thread because they were just offensive. I maintain my position that companies have no business in corporate activism. It's divisive. A corporate culture of inclusiveness is fine. But arrogant activism at events like a public shareholder meeting is not. People got way off this topic but I've let that go and the thread is still open.
 
FYI +Peter Bromberg 

"Conservative Libertarianism is a political position that deals with morality and ethical beliefs, based that all men and women are created equal. It is also a political party that does not allow religious beliefs to get in the way of allowing all people (regardless of their background, ethical standpoints, religious standpoints, or sexuality) the promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
 
Please don't preach to me +Jeremy Reger Each of us is free to choose what we want to believe as far as conservatism / libertarianism is concerned. The implication in your quote is that I do not ascribe to what you choose is the definition. Which is of course, untrue. 
 
each of us is not free to choose how to define something.. look it up yourself.. but you cant just call a thorn a rose.. its not possible.. 
 
+Mike Neu Fox News is definitely saying that the Starbucks CEO told investors to take their money elsewhere. The right wing media relies extensively on editing quotes and/or removing them from their original context.

Then when someone like Media Matters comes along and reveals the right wing media's rhetorical slight of hand (with complete transcript, video, sound file so the audience can experience the actors entire act - IOW, in context), the right wing media accuses them of being a tool of George Soros.

These same critics are either oblivious or willfully ignorant of Fox News corrupt owner Rupert Murdoch.
 
Dunkin Donuts or my kitchen is good enough for me. If I need to have or take coffee with me it goes into the Stanley Thermos. I use Great Value 100% Colombian Coffee (medium or dark) straight from Wal-Mart.
 
This is horse apples...
If it wasn't for the fact that it's bloody expensive coffee I'd buy more just to spite you :-P
 
+Peter Bromberg Just out of curiosity, are you okay with multi-race drinking fountains? Just trying to figure out where you draw the line.
 
+Peter Bromberg To suggest Fox News has a bias is to assume it is a news broadcaster. Just putting News in their name does not mean they practice journalism. One can broadcast news without ever having done any journalism.

Fox News is GOP TV, which was always meant to be a propaganda tool for Murdoch.
 
That's your opinion +Greg Peterson A recent Pew study indicates something quite a bit different. While Fox News, too, had more opinionated programming, the network had a much smaller discrepancy between opinion and straight reporting.

The study states that opinionated programming comprised 85 percent of MSNBC’s airtime (versus 15 percent of “factual reporting”). Meanwhile, Fox News had opinion 55 percent of the time, with 45 percent straight news. Only CNN had reporting dominating commentary.
 
But the problem with that poll is that MSNBC makes no claim to being a news broadcaster, hence their tag line "The place for politics". Imagine the outrage if PBS advertised The Ness Hour as the place for politics. No news broadcaster could be taken seriously if they advertised they were Thee Place For Politics. MSNBC even gives up three hours in the prime AM time slot to Joe Scarborough, a conservative. Fox won't even have a liberal in set unless they outnumber them two to one.

Comparing MSNBC to Fox News is like comparing an apple to an orange.

As for FOX News being GOP TV, this a well documented fact. Google it if you dare to read the truth.
 
Regardless, Shultz answered a share holders question honestly and directly, which is more than many CEO's would do.

If you have a problem with Starbuck's support for an issue, or any corporation's support for any issue, you are free to choose to not conduct business with them.

Shultz informed the disgruntled share holder that he was free to take his money elsewhere, but that Shultz found it unlikely the share holder would find a better ROI than he had experienced with Starbucks.

I fail to see the outrage or controversy. It isn't as if he accused someone testifying before congress of being a prostitute.
 
+Jeremy Reger It's the echo chamber. About the time the cold war ended, the right wing media started ginning up a new boogey man; liberals.

To that end, no means is inappropriate. This story is a pretty good example of the ideological bent the right wing media is on.

One source says something outrageous, then another source sites the original source (therefore it must be true), and so on and so on.

Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal so that FOX News can cite an article (usually an op-ed piece by some right wing pundit or leader) printed in the Wall Street Journal. And off we go to the races.

The right wing has abandoned all journalistic standards and practices, with their stock in trade being half truths and truths left unsaid.

Surely those who find the idea of same sex unions uncouth and uncivilized will find some some way to excuse or ignore this glaring departure from journalism. We see this on a daily basis now.

They confuse Fox News (and the entire right wing media) with journalism. I would think most of the right wing's audience is old enough to remember what journalism is.
 
This definitely makes me more interested in Starbucks now. Will try to got there more often :)
Add a comment...