This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

According to a report by Forbes, since having announced its financial support for Washington state’s referendum backing gay marriage, Starbucks has experienced a highly unusual decrease in national sales and earnings.

Last Wednesday at the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting, when an investor dared to challenge CEO Howard Schultz by suggesting that perhaps Starbucks’ advocacy for gay marriage legislation just might be contributing to declining profits in the first quarter, Schultz lashed out:

If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”

Schultz’s intolerance and contempt for an opposing opinion was on full display in his disdainful response to a shareholder who supports a biblical view of marriage. Based on this very public scolding in front of hundreds of fellow shareholders, one can only surmise that Schultz holds similar contempt for Starbucks customers who also recognize marriage as a sacrament between one man and one woman.

Schultz’s public bullying of a Starbucks shareholder sends a loud and clear message to Americans who believe in traditional marriage: we are second-class customers.

While jumping on the same-sex bandwagon has become the cause du jour for politicians, when companies make the conscientious decision to enter the political fray by advocating for controversial policies, they inevitably tend to pay a heavy price. Both JC Penney and Abercrombie and Fitch have suffered from declining sales since choosing to side with causes rather than customers. Is Starbucks willing to risk the same demise?

Instead of berating his shareholders, and by extension all customers who may disagree with his stance on same-sex marriage, it would behoove Schultz to emulate his Chick Fil-A counterpart, Dan Cathy, on how to deal with opposing beliefs in a more tolerant and kind fashion.

Who can forget the throngs of Americans lining up outside of Chick Fil-A last July to show support for Dan Cathy’s remarks regarding his views of traditional marriage?

To refresh your memory, Cathy had stated in an interview with the Baptist Press that he believed marriage is a relationship ordained by God and exclusively designed for one man and one woman. The liberal media didn’t hesitate to pounce on Cathy’s remarks (which by the way are completely within mainstream evangelical thought) – characterizing the Chick Fil-A President as an anti-gay bigot while launching a full assault on his character.

Predictably, however, the media’s overreach became their shame as millions upon millions of Americans stood in line to patronize Chick Fil-A in support of Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech.

Yet even after the Chick Fil-brouhaha blew over, Dan Cathy never attempted to retaliate against the unjust character assassination or try to defend his core values to an unforgiving media. He didn’t lash out at the journalists who launched a full assault on his organization, nor did he go after the activists who ginned up protests on the blogosphere.

Instead, Dan Cathy allowed his past actions to speak volumes to his character as stories emerged regarding the charity and generosity of the entire Cathy Family.

And if remaining silent before his accusers wasn’t enough to endear the American people to Chick Fil-A, store owners demonstrated unusual hospitality by offering free food and drinks to protesters who took to the sidewalks in front of Chick Fil-A establishments with their anti-Cathy placards. Talk about heaping burning coals on your enemy’s head!

Clearly there is a stark contrast between the manners in which these two organizational leaders choose to engage those with whom they disagree.

Schultz, coming across as terribly thin-skinned when asked to defend Starbucks’ response to the marriage debate, has resorted to bullying and berating while Cathy has sought to reach out to his accusers with love and kindness.

For those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage, the next time you sit down to enjoy your overpriced cup of elitist java, think about the words of Howard Schultz and reconsider if you are comfortable supporting an organization that is willing to publically bully into submission those who believe in the sanctity of marriage.

You may discover that Starbucks coffee is just too dark and bitter to swallow. May I suggest some refreshing sweet ice tea instead?


Kevin Jackson's hilarious take on Race-Pimping: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Business of Liberalism!

Enjoy this excerpt from the book:

"Meanwhile, you are firmly in control. If (actually, when) you experience problems with poverty, crime, gangs, lack of urban development in cities where you have a black mayor, a black congressman, a black city manager, a black superintendent of schools, a black county treasurer, a black chief of police, a black fire chief, blacks on the county Board of Supervisors, blacks on the school board, etc., find ONE white man, preferably a Republican to blame for all those problems. If one doesn’t exist, don’t be afraid to refurbish one, even if you have to blame Republican Presidents George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Herbert Hoover, or T.R. Roosevelt."

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • TexasCorvette

    ..well phrased…but you might want to correct the spelling of the man’s name.

  • Paul Thomas

    I’m not a shareholder nor even a cup holder of this rotten gross way over priced shit-e brew that they call corfee, nor will ever be!! So shultz does’nt need to worry about me ever opening his door. Looks like to me that garbbage in garbage out..

  • VonZorch Imperial Researcher

    I have long characterized Starbucks as overpriced swill. However if you happen to be in the far west you should stop at Dutch Bros, every bit as politikaly korrekt, but good coffee at a relatively low price.

    • ongelofelijk

      What = wrong with McDonald’s brew?

      • Radman414

        Nothing really. It’s just that once you’re at the counter, you’re tempted to also buy a lot of high-calorie “extras.” lol

  • Wolfebets

    This second class citizen has just drank their last frappicino.

  • MIS

    I stopped buying Starbucks last fall when he spoke out in support of Obama!

    • ongelofelijk

      The law of natural consequences! Libtards like Schultz lack any sense and nobody should be surprised to have statements like this come from a cesspool of the progressive thinking crowd. Have him brush his teeth in his lattteees!

  • Mattie King

    You can’t in one breath say Cathy has right to freedom of speech then criticize Howard for exercising his. The shareholders direct comment warranted a direct response. Painting this response as bullying is an overstatement. He simply was saying if the shareholder is unhappy with the way his stock is performing he can feel free to try a different company as he has every right to. We should be applauding Shultz for standing firm and not backing on his beliefs to appease like many a conservative Christian expressed toward Cathy. You critcize Howard, yet Dan of Chickfila was donating money to anti-gay groups which was the real issue and far more of a bullying tactic that Shultz’s comment will ever be. Way to be a respectable journalist when you only portray one biased side.

    • andy

      Cathy didn’t make his comments at a shareholder meeting but was cornered by the reporter than berated for his views in the public. Howard was in a public forum and was asked by one of his owners(shareholder) why they were doing the pro gay marriage flag waving when they should be making coffee. there is a difference in what occurred. if this is still a bias view than so be it because you get your liberal cup of java every day from ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, etc… and what do i get? fair and balanced FOX?

      • Mattie King

        It was biased in how Amy interpreted the situation as “bullying” the shareholder because she favors Cathy’s stance. If you get your news from Faux there’s no wonder you wouldn’t understand her critique as being unfair and a blatant situation written grossly out of proportion with more personal opinion than fact. That’s the difference.

        • Radman414

          And from where do you absorb your unbiased news, Mattie?

          • Mattie King

            It’s called critical thinking in this case.

          • Radman414

            You’re being evasive and not responsive to my question, Mattie. In order to develop critical thinking skills, data/facts are required to compare and contrast to formulate an opinion. Since you obviously reject any statements and opinions if they originate at FNN (“Faux”), I just asked from where you get YOUR information. And, if you won’t answer, logical reasoning leads to the conclusion that it must be from one or more leftist (biased) sources in the MSM or from cable.

          • Mattie King

            Local nightly news: KXAN. Reports the facts, not the facts alongside their opinion or interpretation a la Fox talk shows.

            In the end, it doesn’t not matter whether I get news from KXAN or FOX, it’s whether the prejudice of one party gets in the way of reporting an unbiased account of said news which is the case with Amy’s article (a conservative Christian Republican I’m assuming based on her pro-life stance.)

    • Bulldog74

      I don’t recall that Cathy told supporters of gay marriage to take their business elsewhere.
      Howard has every right to run his business as he sees fit, and customers can support him or not as they choose. And unlike Chick-fil-a, Starbucks doesn’t have to worry about some fascist city official trying to shut them down.
      But frankly if I was on Starbucks’ board of directors I’d be a little miffed right now.

      • Mattie King

        Uh, he didn’t say to take business elsewhere. But if that’s how you want to read the quote so be it.

        • Landy Man

          Um…”You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” As close to saying take your business elsewhere as one can get.

          • Mattie King

            What’s the real issue here? Semantics? I’m more inclined to debate the fact that Amy considered this bullying rather than a person suggesting if someone doesn’t like a certain outcome why stick around.

          • Bulldog74

            Uh…I think you’re the one getting hung up on semantics by nitpicking between “buy shares in another company” and “take business elsewhere.”
            And actually I’m with Howard on this one. He should be able to make the call as CEO. Too bad Dan Cathy isn’t extended the same courtesy.
            If you’re going to be consistent, then you should be ok with the idea that your local shop owner could refuse to do business with you because you donate to groups that he or she doesn’t like.

          • Mattie King

            That’s because Cathy, as I’ve stated previously, was donating money to anti-gay groups, not that he simply expressed his opinion on the matter of “traditional” marriage. That’s why he isn’t extended the same courtesy. And nitpicking? I’m not the one who first insinuated some outlandish thought that Howard was saying he didn’t want the business of people who aren’t for the equal marriage rights for gay couples. That’s the issue people are choosing to have with the quote which was toward the shareholder and the shareholder alone based on PROFITS DECREASING not his opinion being “pro-traditonal marriage” or whatever Christians want to hide their ignorance behind.

          • Bulldog74

            As Landy Man pointed out, buying shares in a company is the ultimate in giving them your business.

            But if that concept is too much to grasp, then let’s rephrase the question. How would you like it if you owned stock in a company that advised you to invest your shares elsewhere because they didn’t appreciate you giving an opinion on animal care or orphans at a shareholder’s meeting?

          • Mattie King

            That’s not what I’m arguing. It appears what I’m saying is too much for you to grasp. It’s not that the shareholder was told to invest in another company; it’s that the people defending the shareholder are doing so because they believe Howard told the man that since he is pro-traditional marriage, he should invest in another company. Which was not the case, yet the author of this article is painting the exchange as that–which was bottom line how Howard’s equality stance was affecting shares. Or are you just blatantly ignoring this piece of my argument?

          • Bulldog74

            Point taken re. Howard (sorry it took me a while to get the distinction, and really I didn’t mean to border on snarky in that last post) — but actually I did say from the beginning that he did the right thing in his capacity as CEO. It will be up to the market to decide if the stockholders he’s charged with serving benefit from it.

          • Radman414

            Well elucidated.

      • Elizabeth Cody

        Schultz’s shut-down is also a great marketing strategy…a lot more Starbucks customers are supporters of gay marriage than are opponents. Just saying.

        • Bulldog74

          You’ve got a point, much like Chick-fil-a scored points with one set of potential customers while alienating others. Time will tell how it affects the bottom line, I guess.
          Politics aside, if I’m a stockholder than I feel like I should be able to ask any question I want to at a stockholder’s meeting. And upon reflection, I feel that Starbuck’s CEO gave the right answer — “Well, this is the policy we’ve chosen as a company, and as a shareholder, hey it’s your money and it’s up to you if you want to back it or not.”

  • Conservative Canuck

    I am definitely NOT a Starbucks fan, but basically the guy said “put your money where your mouth is”. In other words, if you don’t like the policy that he agrees with, then you are free to put your money elsewhere. You are free to financially support or not support a company.

    • Landy Man

      The issue is that a CEO holds such disdain for the people showing their support for his company by being shareholders, he berates them for not agreeing with his position. That is simply bad business.He isn’t too smart.

      • Conservative Canuck

        I am not certain WHAT video the author watched as this article has NO links and the paragraph mentioned does not indicate that. But I watched the video and it is NOT apparent that is what the CEO did.

  • Carlila Sherman

    I am dying aand I do not want to die with this world in such trouble from God. I will nolonger buy starbucks. I can not be for something that wants this. Sorry I just Can’t!!
    I Pray that they all turn back to God. I love Jesus and I will not hide it. God warned that this would happen, I have family members whom are Gay and I pray every day for them. I love them but am not for the gay part of them I can not adhere to this. Good thing I can make my own drink like starbucks. I have for 15 years and will now continue to do so with my own drink of coffee. Loving God forever in Jesus name. Amen

    • Landy Man

      Amen! and may you have peace with God as you go through this world. Peace be still and praying for you.

  • Elizabeth Cody

    I’m going to buy MORE Starbucks now.
    Quite frankly I believe in free market enterprise and in civil rights. I very much appreciate Mr. Schultz’s defense of civil rights, and respect his ability to do so in the free market. It may have been a bit of a PR move – for every customer alienated by this particular move, many more will be completely on board with this equal-marriage message.
    Please realize, first, that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, the expansion of a government-granted citizen’s right to all people. Our government, which is secular, must not deny anyone any civil right based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identification…
    Secondly, I want to tell you that the days of inequality and religion-biased interference in issues of governance and civil rights are ending. The majority of the younger generation of which I am a part will defend equality and freedom.

    I am Christian, I am young, and I stand for equality.

    • mudguy1

      Sorry you are Christian in name only. A true Christian believes what the bible says about the gay lifestyle. You can give respect but a true Christian will never condone their lifestyle.

      • Mark Struble


    • standingfire

      gay rights is a behavior issue, it is not civil rights, to elevate one’s behavior to the same level as a visible condition present at birth, it is a behavior and I will stop purchasing starbucks and that includes the stock…

    • Mark Struble

      Sadly Elizabeth what many in the younger generation have been led to believe is that God is not that concerned about sexual sin. Your generation has been well nourished by a secular sexual ethic that you then try to interpret God’s written word through. Homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like are not genetic. There is zero evidence for this, just 20-30 years of people saying that it is so, because they don’t “see” how it could be a choice, because they always “felt” this way or that. That is not science, it is called spiritual blindness. If you truly are saved, then you need to pray for God to free you from the ungodly thoughts and influences of today’s culture, that you might see things as God sees them. Most importantly remember to agree with God about how he views ALL sin, does not make you a hater. It is what you do with this truth that can make you “a hater” or not. Love the sinner (which we all are) not the sin. And by the way, the real “sin” to be concerned with is not so much how others are living their lives, but rather that many of these same people are attempting to make people believe that some “sins” are not really sin. It is one thing if they are spiritually blinded themeselves. But attempting to guilt others (by way of labeling them something bad, such as a hater) into believing a lie and therefore make God’s word a lie, or outdated, is even worse. In my opinion. If you would like some logical examples to while not “prove” that these sexual choices are not genetic, at least provide a firmer foundation than what the other side has to offer let me know. The TRUTH is available to all, you just have to seek it with all of your heart.

    • CamoCoyote

      The notion that gender is interchangeable is obviously absurd, as only the union of a man and a woman can enable such an argument. Additionally, marriage as defined by law reflects marriage as defined by religion — and not the other way around. Besides running afoul of The First Amendment, judges or politicians can no more redefine marriage than they can redefine any other religious institution.

      The government can fulfill its requirement to provide equal legal rights (and obligations) for all citizens by defining a civil union that parallels the definition of marriage. Not surprisingly, we’re told this is not acceptable — because the real agenda was never about equal rights. “Marriage equality” is about subordinating traditional family, community and religious values under government authority.

    • ongelofelijk

      Hey, add some Kool Aid to your latte!

    • RogerEX

      standingfire has it right. This is not a civil-rights issue, rather a choice of behaviors that is repugnant to a holy God. Framing the matter as a civil-rights issue is to say that you believe your behaviors are to be guided by some legal structures, and not by what God’s Word says. Far too many calling themselves Christians are coming forth in favor of same-sex marriage. They are conceding that the message of the world is stronger than the message of the Bible. Elizabeth, as a Christian, we are called to be followers of Christ. Equality is not the issue, rather obedience. Following the ways of the world is to be just as guilty as those choosing same-sex unions (or, those who choose cohabitation). None of us are perfect, but this issue is one where we have no room to be fence-sitters, or to follow a path of blatant disobedience.

      • Mattie King

        So when slavery was a civil rights issue, it was simply that slaves weren’t obeying God? People used the bible to justify unequal civil rights for slaves too. You sound like you’d be of like mind, but look how far we’ve come from that time. It’s about being granted equal rights by their country, not religion.

        • RogerEX

          Remember, right and wrong transcend country boundaries, right and wrong transcend time eras. Obedience to God’s word never is trumped by some unique situation in a country. Trying to set our moral compass by the laws of the land is a failed strategy. Laws change with elected and appointed officials. But, the laws of God, as defined in Scripture, never change at the whim of some human-based movement. What has happened to living by convictions based upon absolute, immutable laws? Trying to keep up with the trade winds of the unstable movements of humankind is contrary to a biblical worldview. The notion of “Everyone did what was right in their own eyes” applies. We have ample evidence through biblical history this worldview only leads to chaos. Do we think 2013 human life should be any different?

          Nobody can ever justify further disobedience because of the violations of others.

          • Mattie King

            To those who kept slaves, they thought they WERE obeying God’s word and saw slavery as justified treatment. How is this situation any different? In this 2013 human life, you see the the oppression of homosexuals as justified because you think you’re obeying God’s law just as slave owners justified slavery. Not basing situations on previous actions/similar occurrences of the same group (Christians in this instance) is what truly leads to chaos as “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

          • Ryanand Kayla Griffin

            That’s a common mistake in the argument Mattie. Slavery in the biblical context and history, is completely different than slavery from the 1400’s AD onward. The bible is clear in Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.” Just because people ‘said’ the bible condoned what they were practicing, doesn’t make what they said true. The bible is truth, and the bible was clear, you cannot kidnap someone and sell them(or trade) into slavery.

          • Mattie King

            Whether the Bible condones it, or just explains the limitations, I’m arguing the fact that people used the bible’s passages and personal interpretation to justify their own endpoint against others. That should never be the case whether right or wrong and never put into practice as such.

          • RogerEX

            Oh, I understood your point. Trying to make your case as a secularist will never stand against the case of a biblical worldview. amaco lays out the case very well in another post in this thread. In some matters, there is room for interpretive discussion, but not this one.

            You are right about repeating history, and learning from it. Biblical history is very clear regarding cultures that were disobedient to God’s laws. Discipline followed, and often severely. The seven cycles of disobedience and discipline outlined in Judges is very clear. The demise of the Northern Kingdom, and later the Southern Kingdom is not vague. We can look to later history where empires have fallen when God’s laws are disobeyed. Mankind has always thought we could “improve” on God’s laws, circumvent them, or totally ignore them, and remain without consequence. Why should mankind think the ignoring of God’s laws in 2013 would be any different? Disobedience always has negative consequences.

            Professing to be Christian, and yet ignoring the truth claims of the Bible is inconsistent. Some of us have pointed this out in Elizabeth’s position. Claiming Christianity, yet living as a secularist does not go together. One cannot hold both positions. Elizabeth is free to buy more Starbucks coffee, but I would hope she would use the time with the coffee to explore God’s Word on this matter.

            As an extension of this thought, one cannot embrace the truths of the Bible for salvation, and yet hold to the claim of some regarding homosexuality something other than a choice. The entire civil rights argument hinges on homosexuality not being a choice.

            Mattie, since the Bible is not your source of absolute truth, and the source for all matters concerning life and faith, can you share your source please? Thank you.

          • Mattie King

            I don’t need a “source” to tell me that encroaching on how homosexuals live their lives that cause no harm to me or others based on what I believe is wrong, and forcing everyone into a small box of sinner and saint is ignorant at best. There are shades of grey, and everything and everyone has room for error. Professing to be Christian, but supporting the rights of others to live a non-Christian path, just like we as society allow others to live a atheist/Muslim/Buddhist/gypsy way of life, is the most Christian thing you can do.

          • Elizabeth Cody

            I love it. Thanks for putting into words what I was trying to say: that the thing that matters most not just as a religious person but as a decent human being is tolerance and the ability to respect and love everybody – the natural extension of which is granting everybody equal civil rights.

            Thanks Mattie!!!

          • RogerEX

            Thanks for your response.
            This helps us drill down to the tap root of the matter.

            Just like everybody has a belly button, everybody has a
            belief system, a set of beliefs that form their worldview. Your claim of “no source” misses the mark of understanding
            something very fundamental in how we think, how we behave, and our
            positions. Yes, you do have a source of
            your beliefs. It is not a matter of “not
            needing,” “not wanting,” or other “not …” arguments. The question is not IF you have, or want, a
            source, but rather the identity of the source.
            In other words, what is the foundation of your beliefs?

            If you are unable to answer that question, you are left to
            wander, searching for an answer to every situation that arises. Like many who claim to have “no source,” the
            best answer for you comes from a man-made legal system, one that is subject to
            the whims of voters, and public officials.
            As time passes, the whims change, and public officials change, and John
            Q Public is left wondering what to do?
            Searching for a moral compass in the light of a changing landscape is
            frustrating and confusing, leading to discouragement.

            I rest my case on why this is not a civil-rights issue. The Christian has a source of absolute truth,
            one that does not waver at the whims of the trade winds of the time. Right is right, wrong is wrong, good is good,
            evil is evil, regardless of the time era, regardless of the geographical

            There is no ignorance about sinners, yes or no. Everybody, me, my family, my friends, you,
            your family, your friends, everybody. On
            this point, there is no ambiguity.
            Nobody lives to God’s standard.
            This is why our separation from Him, and in need of a Savior, the Lord
            Jesus Christ. It matters not how good we
            believe ourselves to be, we remain lost and apart from Him. There is “no room for error,” everybody has
            strayed from the right path. There are
            no shades of grey.

            As for the most Christian thing to do: Believe in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ,
            trust in Him, and Him alone for salvation.
            Thinking there is another path to salvation is erroneous. The Bible is very clear. Loving each other is a great thing to do, but
            it follows as a response to the great gift of salvation. First, we need to deal with the vertical
            relationship, then we can deal with the horizontal one.

      • Elizabeth Cody

        Quite honestly I think you have a rather fair and equitable view on this issue, and I’d like to say thanks – your comments were interesting and well-worded.

        I would like to say that first of all I do not believe being Christian and being in favor of gay rights are mutually exclusive. You have the perfect right of course to believe that they are, and to practice your particular sort of Christianity as such. However, I and other Christians do make some tricky compromises and yet maintain the most important aspects of the faith.

        Secondly, you have to realize that your personal religion (and the corresponding morals it dictates) cannot always be used in a political or social field. Your individual church, perhaps, is perfectly free NOT to marry same-sex couples. But the government is secular, not above religion, but secular and must not use religious arguments to deny a particular right.

        Your personal conviction is admirable. I love the idea that right and wrong are transcendent. However do maintain perspective – the religious have used religion to back things that were later recognized as overtly wrong for centuries (I’m thinking the Crusades, segregation…)

        • RogerEX

          First, thanks for your response Elizabeth. These viewpoints are valuable to read, as
          they present a position that leaves many of us an opportunity to respond.

          We cannot hold to the truths of the Bible as a Christian,
          and yet be supportive of disobedient choices.
          In this case, the topic is focused on the choice of living a homosexual
          lifestyle. But, the same is true for
          cohabitation relationships, debauchery, or any other form of immoral
          behavior. The Bible is very clear about
          “the former lifestyle,” and what it means to be “a new creation” at
          regeneration. Being a Christian is not a
          societal status, rather is in all, and only, about a relationship with
          Jesus. Jesus was very clear, “If you
          love me, keep my commandments.” If we
          understand His wonderful gift of salvation, then we are, in Paul’s terms,
          “compelled” to live as a new creation.
          To be sure, this does not mean perfection, but it does mean setting
          aside willful actions that are disobedient.
          Choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is disobedient. Our support of the lifestyle is not unlike
          being involved with the lifestyle ourselves.

          I don’t know what you mean by “personal religion.” I would hope that no Christian has “personal
          religion.” Jesus saved much of His
          harshest teaching against religion (e.g. Pharisees). Old Testament prophets spoke very strongly
          against religion (e.g. Isaiah, Amos).

          Our Christian belief cuts across any path of our life,
          political or social. We don’t “put it
          on” and “take it off.” Thinking we can
          be one person Monday-Saturday, and another on Sunday morning, is never supported
          in Scripture. Either we are a Christian
          24/7/365, or we are not. Either we are
          Christian at church, AND at our place of work, play, school, or any other life
          endeavor, or we are not. At
          regeneration, we take on a new DNA, one that is not merely worn on the sleeve
          sometimes, but put back in our dresser drawer at night.

          As I said to Mattie in another post, trying to justify one
          position because of failures of others does not work. In some cases, a subject may be open to
          discussion. On the subject of choice of
          homosexual lifestyle, cohabitation, lust, there is no room to wiggle free. Seeing somebody living in blatant
          disobedience, and raising objection, is not about condemning, but rather
          attempting offer them the same salvation that all Christians enjoy. No, their change in leaving the homosexual
          lifestyle will not save them, but repentance of past sins is part of the
          salvation process. Their salvation exceeds our dismal attempts at loving them
          on human grounds. They are much better
          served to be loved the God, than loved by you or me.

          Remember, Christianity is primarily about our eternal
          destiny. It is not a social
          movement. It is about dealing with the
          curse of Genesis 3, and removal of that curse in Revelation 22. All the material between these two time
          points is focused on redemption, restoring the perfect relationship between
          mankind and God. Our response to this
          great redemption is about pleasing a holy God, the One who considers sin
          repugnant. It is not about doing
          things/not doing things we think might gain us favor to bridge the gap. There is nothing here that is not very plain
          in the Bible. Objectors should take their case to the Bible.


      What makes you a Christian?

      What does your being young have to do with anything?

      Please get literate on the subject of Civil Rights, this fight for “equality” does not qualify; please get educated. So many people are taking positions based on emotion because they know someone who…, have a relative who…that’s SO not what this is about.

      Let’s see them demonstrate their sexual equality to give us some kind of basis for paying our taxes to facilitate or endorse their “equal rights”. Many people have been duped into believing they are the protectors and defenders of a group that is not representing the interests of the State and whom cannot even be identified apart from their arbitrary acts identifying themselves as___.

      Tell me, how do you recognize a gay or lesbian person without them telling you AND demonstrating to you through a sexual act with a person of the same gender ON A CONSISTENT, CONTINUAL BASIS that they are?

      My contention is beyond the whole homosexuality controversy, I’ve always thought that American culture is too deeply observant and conversant on the details of people’s private sexual acts anyway.

  • asbnsaf

    Do you have the primary source anywhere? A link to the Forbes’ article?

  • asbnsaf

    please post the primary source article too

  • Landy Man

    Howard arrogantly told a shareholder he could take his business elsewhere. Cathy never got in the face of a shareholder. Big difference.

  • amabo skcus

    Do you claim to be Christian….you know, those people that say they believe in the Holy Bible?

    Well then….make your choice….God or this world.

    Jesus is God – He is God in the flesh – the red lettered editions are just words when God was on earth. ALL the Words in the Bible are from Jesus. ALL words spoken from any human being in the Bible are the Words of Jesus (God).

    For if you believed Moses you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:46-47

    What law was Jesus born under? What law did He live under? It was the Law of Moses. Gal. 4:4

    Did Jesus endorse and follow the Law of Moses? What did the Law of Moses say about homosexuality? Lev. 18:22, 20:13 / Deut. 23:17

    Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses, and since He endorsed the Law
    of Moses, and since the Law of Moses explicitly condemned homosexuality, he also condemned it.

    What did the apostle Paul [by Christ’s authority] say about the practice of homosexuality? Rom. 1:26-27 / 1 Cor. 6:9-10

    Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus
    condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God.

    Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as morally accepted marriage.

    He stated:
    “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female”, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Mathew 19:4-6 He defined marriage as one male and one female and NO OTHER example. By these words Jesus effectively condemned all other arrangements of marriage, union or any other imagination. The overwhelming logic for Jesus to have to explicitly condemn EVERY assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd.

    When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only authorized by God.

  • Islam Moohammed

    In Santa Fe we have the same issue of hate coming from anyone that disagrees with the mayor. As a city that takes a sick pride in being the lesbian capital of America and with the homo community racing to catch up, the mayor leads from behind. Literally. Like Anthony Weiner and the president having secrets in the closet, my gay friends make jokes about the mayor having quite a rep in the gay community and is known to take trips south of the border to enjoy the softer side for sale there. It is obvious the Starbucks CEO is disturbed about what his closet keeps secret. When a person equates anal sex between men to a marriage of a man and woman you know they are hiding some heavy shame. Starbucks is off my daily coffee stop as long as he has a job there. Him just stating something contrite to get customers back will not work.

  • Radman414

    Words (terms) have meaning, and I fully support the concept of civil unions/legal partnerships between members of the same sex; and they should bestow rights and responsibilities on the partners that are absolutely equivalent to man-woman unions. However, “formalized” same-sex relationships should NEVER be called a “marriage”… period! The term “marriage” has its origins in religion, and it has been specifically and historically defined in the Holy Bible, the Quran, etc., and other religious documents as the solemn God-sanctioned ceremony of joining one man and one woman. No civil government of any type has the right or the authority to re-define any religious terms; so the bottom line here is that relationships between members of the same sex cannot BE, and should, therefore, NEVER BE referred to, or designated as, a “marriage” anywhere in either civil law or in society…because THEY ARE NOT!


      Right, and the amazing thing is that you don’t see the same intense, concerted effort on the part of these activists and media manipulators to re-write and re-order the holy books or tenets of other faiths like they are doing Christianity–makes me wonder.

      I am not a Christian and it seems to me they have a particular animosity toward that faiyh and its tenets. If they don’t like what the bible says they should just write their own and leave those who are cool with the bible alone; those people are every bit citizens and the gay activists are demanding their hard-earned money in the form of taxes, so what did they expect?

      Anyway, to your point about the term and meaning of marriage, I mean, my background is in the legal field and marriages must be consummated (sealed by sexual intercourse). Gays & lesbians cannot consummate (any honest doctor who is not intimidated by political pressure will tell uou the anus/rectum is not made to be penetrated, it is an exit, not an entrance).

  • Sahtzie

    I agree with all of you, BUT, as a parent of a special needs child, can we PLEASE behave like Christians and not use the term “retarded” and “libtard!” It is very demeaning and disrespectful of God’s special children. Thanks!

    • Linnette Rondon Hernandez

      Amen… I agree with you 100% we can all say what we believe in and stand for but not stooping down to the level were we hurt God with our words, he is love and demands us to show respect. ♥♥ God bless♥♥ I stand only for ★★ ★★¡¡traditional marriage! !★★

  • leo vera

    I just found out where starbutts stands. No more coffee for me.

  • chuckie2u

    Quit buying Starbucks Coffee let the gay community support them

  • chuckie2u

    Buy yo coffee at McBurgers or anyother place besides Starbucks.. Let them sink.

  • Pat Pettie

    I do not understand about the company routine. Can the share holders vote to oust this bigot Schultz out and elect a new CEO? I think they should, when the company business is falling, it meant this guy did not perform well, he should be kicked out.

  • disabledvet1

    Boycott Starbucks NOW and tell others…go to

  • Mattie King

    You know, if so many of you are in favor of boycotting Starbucks because of their favor of equal rights, perhaps you should log off your Facebook and your Microsoft/Apple system because both support the gay community.


      The companies you named are employers of homosexual people and give them benefits like any other employee; that is not the same as the head and face of the company making the decision for the entire staff whose views may range that they support whatever the activists are wanting. I for one just want to come to work and do my job, not be pressured into taking aside this way or that way politically. I mean what if I don’t care about the issue


        work is about contributing one’s time and a certain skill set; there is a place for activism and it is in the realm of private citizenry. What is Schultz and others going to avoid hiring people who don’t express approval of homosexuality (the practice) despite their possession of the skill set and character the position calls for? That’s asking for law suits.

        All businesses need to keep it simple and stay out of folks’ personal ideologies. Different city government officials all got really harsh and hateful when Chick-fil-A was making an expansion move and set up all kinds of meetings presumptuously and preemptively because they assumed the company would not hire gays or lesbians–when in fact there was no track record of that type of discrimination. The called that Cathy guy names and it was just a venomous zoo of media frenzy all because they wanted to punish people who don’t support what another group of people want them to support IN THE SPECIFIC WAY THAT THEY WANT THIS SUPPORT. Bottom line is: no one group (especially one that is less than 5% of our population) has the right to have their desire for approval or their hurt to be the basis of compulsory compliance in state law.

  • Lance Scurvin

    I’m not running for office. I am not the President of the United
    States who MUST proclaim something at an inaugural address that will
    guarantee support in segment of society that has long been ignored. I am
    not looking for anything that I couldn’t get all by myself but what I
    don’t want to happen is that I miss out on my salvation by putting mans
    law over Gods!

    I’m sorry y’all! I will NOT take the mark of the beast nor will I
    indulge or support something that is against the will of the Creator!

    I support your right to pursue anything and everything that you wish
    to do as a human being and as a child of God who has been granted this
    thing called Free Will, but don’t expect me to go against my commands as
    I believe them to be to be a part of this order!

  • Carl Carlson

    I have no problem drinking coffee somewere else.

  • Woody NinetyNiner Konopak

    Not “Second-class customers.”
    Third-rate intellects.
    Jeebis, the STOOOOOOPID it’s rampant…It BURNS!!!

  • Jill Boyd

    Bullying and berating? I would recommend you watch the video of his remarks. He respectfully stated his company’s position.

  • Judy Parker

    I was a huge starbucks customer but I haven’t darkened their doorway since they refused to supply our troops with their product. Now that they support sick freaks of nature I will never spend another dime of my money in their place of business.

    • winneratlife

      Judy, while you may disagree with the lifestyle that gays live, it’s important to remember who we represent. Assuming you’re a Christian: we have the conviction that homosexuality is wrong based off of the Bible, yes? Well we also have the same conviction to love other people the way Christ loved us, no matter how they fall short. We all sin in our own ways, and calling someone a “sick freak of nature” is extremely unChristlike. They’re actually a normal, sinful human. Just like you, just like me. We all have something we need forgiveness for: let’s not let those things hold us back from loving every single human being unconditionally, the way our Savior did.

      Please be kind, especially when representing the One who paid it all for these people.

      • Marilen Blanco

        I agree with you, Winner for life. Let us act in love and kindness while we emulate our Lord Jesus Christ.

        • joseph mazz

          I agree, all sin and come short of the glory of God.


    Right, just because he uses the word “respectfully” doesn’t mean he’s being respectful at all. He claims he is about equality and respecting people’s differences or “diversity” (which is a term that must be defined because too many people are using it to mean different things) but then shows this smug attitude and basically tells a good portion of his customer base whom he is supposed to be serving that they must be penalized for not seeing things his way. Business is not supposed to be a tool to try and control other people’s political persuasions (which some of us have none particularly). Mr Schultz has gone too far. Starbucks is not all that–overpriced, elitist vibe, annoyingly ubiquitous.

  • Corey L Bracken

    After hearing of your public debate with Howard Schultz I felt it pertinent to inform you of an incident that occurred in January of this year that violated the American with Disabilities Act Statute Section 36.04(c) in which an employee demanded to see documentation for my service canine. I have this incident on video. I have also sent Mr. Schultz am email pertaining to this incident with no adequate response. On May 17, 2013 I did send a letter via certified mail informing Starbucks of my intention of filing a Title III complaint with the Departmant of Justice on June 6, 2013 I did just that. Starbucks has yet to contact my person about this since the May 17 letter. If you would like this information including a copy of the video please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

    Is this appropriate of Starbucks to do?

    Warm regards,

    Corey L. Bracken


  • Michael Sheetz

    He was asked a question, and he responded with his view and facts that stated how much his company grew. He did not bully, he was not mean. He merely stated the facts than said, i am paraphrasing here, if you are unhappy with those facts than you may take your buisness else where. i could find no real acid in his speech toward anyone, i only saw him respond to a question. would someone mind explaining to me how this is bullying?


Trending on The Black Sphere