Starbucks

momi said:
Support traditional marriage? Starbucks says take your business elsewhere.

Now this is true intolerance.

http://www.examiner.com/article/starbucks-ceo-no-tolerance-for-traditional-marriage-supporters
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing ths momi. It confirms my decision to stop partronizing Starbucks, that I made almost a year ago.

This statement he made is total biotry. Who is he trying to impress?

At the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday, CEO Howard Schultz sent a clear message to anyone who supports traditional marriage over gay marriage:

....we don't want your business.

After saying Starbucks wants to "embrace diversity of all kinds," he told a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in some other company.

Really Starbucks? Really? :nono:

I stopped supporting you about a year ago for this very reason and not only has it saved me many, many dollars, I have a peace of mind that transcends your ignorance towards those who have higher standards and values.

You'll be losing even more shareholders and dips in business and further, Mr. Schultz, you will not be the 'empire' that you think you are, neither will you succeed. It's your loss. You chose the 'flavor', drink it. :nono:
 
Nice & Wavy said:
Thank you for this information. I will pass it along to the few thousand people I know who drink starbucks and SUPPORT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE....WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM ANYMORE BUSINESS EITHER!!!:yep:
Click to expand...

Smiling at the "few thousand" comment.
I shared it with my husband this morning as he was sitting in Starbucks. It took a few moments for it to kick in.
 
Shimmie said:
After saying Starbucks wants to "embrace diversity of all kinds," he told a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in some other company.


You'll be losing even more shareholders and dips in business and further, Mr. Schultz, you will not be the 'empire' that you think you are, neither will you succeed. It's your loss. You chose the 'flavor', drink it. :nono:
Click to expand...


"Starbucks embraces diversity of all kinds" (of course with the exception of those who disagree with us - is what he should have added)

Exactly Shimmie... his loss.
 
I am not surprised ... I have never supported Starbucks because I have never felt comfortable with them for some reason.

Sent from my 4G HTC Thunderbolt using LHCF
 
^^to be honest, I never could understand what the big fuss was all about...people just started to flock to Starbucks in droves imo their coffee aint all of that.

We have two on property here and the lines are always out the door, this morning I had oatmeal and raisins from them, I need to be bringing my oatmeal from home, I can no longer support them.
 
I also stopped going there 2 years ago when I found out about its logo. Now I have greater reason not to support this business.
 
What's up with big businesses doing such horrid things. I am just disgusted. I loved Starbucks but I can't afford it really anymore. I guess I will just have to find some other place to go.
 
GoddessMaker

I used to go to Starbucks all the time because I was an avid coffee drinker. I bought the whole beans of Kenya to make at home.Then I began to learn about satanist symbolism in a lot of products and companies. Don't get me wrong, I probably still inadvertently use products that may be affiliated with occultic symbolism, but if I know about it, I will try not support it. Because I was such a big consumer of it, this struck me more deeply, and I stopped buying it, not looking back.

Starbucks Coffee: Illuminati Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJfbyH3qEqc

The Starbucks Logo Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_APClZ0NrYE

These are a few videos that touches on it.
Also I also had a strange feeling about "having" to go to Starbucks for my coffee felt like bondage.
 
I don't wish them to go out of business or anything, but that response of theirs is equally intolerant. You can support traditional marriage without being a bigoted, ignorant neanderthal spewing hatred and calling down brimstone and hellfire against people. Did he truly think that through because anybody who got a sacramental marriage is a traditionalist (but might feel that gays should get the tax benefits of partnership as well and/or don't support discrimination whatsoever). That's a lot of people ....traditionalists. Shrugs.


Er, which brings me back to the point I raised in a previous post....why don't they get the benefits of partnership/civil union without calling it "marriage" and reserving that term for male-female unions and using another terminology for their same-sex unions......and everybody's happy? You can't make consensual, age appropriate homosexual sex illegal...likewise for couples who shack up or don't shack up and hook up. Everyone has freedom to live immorally. But who is taking on the possibility of tax benefits for their unions and trying their own term? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
 
Last edited:
THIS is my whole problem with the LGBT agenda: if you support traditional marriage you are villified (Chick-Fil-A anyone???). But let S-bucks come out in support of SSM--they get accolades! The standard by which they judge other is ridiculous. Ugh, they just gave me a reason to never buy from them again. I'm so disgusted by this whole thing.

Anyway, the March for Marriage is tomorrow. Pray for the marchers and despite the grim weather, I hope they have a good turnout.
 
Belle Du Jour said:
THIS is my whole problem with the LGBT agenda: if you support traditional marriage you are villified (Chick-Fil-A anyone???). But let S-bucks come out in support of SSM--they get accolades! The standard by which they judge other is ridiculous.

Ugh, they just gave me a reason to never buy from them again. I'm so disgusted by this whole thing.

Anyway, the March for Marriage is tomorrow. Pray for the marchers and despite the grim weather, I hope they have a good turnout.
Click to expand...

I agree, Lady Belle :yep:

The truth is that the Majority of the people in the entire world still supports "Traditional Marriage". The gay revolutionists and the media have purposely subdued this fact, by hyping those who do support gay unions.

Why else would they strategize setting those in place polictically, socially, corporately, in order to gain leverage to achieve their goals.

Yet, still 31 states, not 13, but 31 states, have voted 'against' it and will continue to do so. And this is what the gay agenda is attempting to have overturned by the Supreme Court which is in fact illegal. The Supreme Court becomes a falacy. They know better.

I've been looking at the numerous Ministries who support 'Pure Marriage', Millions upon Millions of people in this country alone, of all ages, races, denominations; there are even thousands of gays who do not agree with re-defining marriage and have voted against it. All of this hype regarding major support for gay marriage bears no justification. It's false presentation, a strategy used to influence / sway public opinion in the gay direction.

I am definitely in prayer, unceasing and one thing I know, God will indeed prevail.
 
JaneBond007 said:
Er, which brings me back to the point I raised in a previous post....why don't they get the benefits of partnership/civil union without calling it "marriage" and reserving that term for male-female unions and using another terminology for their same-sex unions......and everybody's happy? You can't make consensual, age appropriate homosexual sex illegal...likewise for couples who shack up or don't shack up and hook up. Everyone has freedom to live immorally. But who is taking on the possibility of tax benefits for their unions and trying their own term? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Click to expand...

JB, they call their efforts "Marriage Equality." They view their unions as equal (the same) as a marriage and want the title, acceptance, and benefits. Being able to add one's gay partner to health insurance is a small part of a bigger agenda.
 
Shimmie said:
Yet, still 31 states, not 13, but 31 states, have voted 'against' it and will continue to do so. And this is what the gay agenda is attempting to have overturned by the Supreme Court which is in fact illegal. The Supreme Court becomes a falacy. They know better.

I've been looking at the numerous Ministries who support 'Pure Marriage', Millions upon Millions of people in this country alone, of all ages, races, denominations; there are even thousands of gays who do not agree with re-defining marriage and have voted against it. All of this hype regarding major support for gay marriage bears no justification. It's false presentation, a strategy used to influence / sway public opinion in the gay direction.
Click to expand...

Your post just reminded me of this passage of scripture:

Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" So he answered, "Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. (2 Kings 6:15-17)
 
Belle Du Jour said:
Your post just reminded me of this passage of scripture:

Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" So he answered, "Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. (2 Kings 6:15-17)
Click to expand...

Lady Belle... :love2:

Girl, you just made my night. I love my scriptures in I and II Kings. The one you shared above just lives in my heart and you just 'stirred it up' to the surface.

I look at the thousands upon thousands of Churches and Worshippers of the Lord... and I KNOW that I know that I know, that there are more of us who support Pure Marriage. We are protecting 'Life'. Marriage is such a Gift and a Treasure beyond our human knowledge. When I saw your picture of France...the thousands of people protecting Marriage. What a beautiful sight. "Vive Le France.... 'Vive' Long Live France, Long Live".

It's so wrong for any polictical interference to take place. So very wrong. They just don't know what the value of Marriage is. They have no respect for it's sanctity; it's sacredness. They need to leave it alone and let God have His glory in the gift that He has given us.

Dear God... Reign over Marriage... Reign. Have Full Reign over Marriage... Have Full Reign.

In Jesus' Name, Amen and Amen. :pray:
 
Last edited:
JaneBond007 said:
I don't wish them to go out of business or anything, but that response of theirs is equally intolerant. You can support traditional marriage without being a bigoted, ignorant neanderthal spewing hatred and calling down brimstone and hellfire against people. Did he truly think that through because anybody who got a sacramental marriage is a traditionalist (but might feel that gays should get the tax benefits of partnership as well and/or don't support discrimination whatsoever). That's a lot of people ....traditionalists. Shrugs.


Er, which brings me back to the point I raised in a previous post....why don't they get the benefits of partnership/civil union without calling it "marriage" and reserving that term for male-female unions and using another terminology for their same-sex unions......and everybody's happy? You can't make consensual, age appropriate homosexual sex illegal...likewise for couples who shack up or don't shack up and hook up. Everyone has freedom to live immorally. But who is taking on the possibility of tax benefits for their unions and trying their own term? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Click to expand...

In the U.K, they've had 'civil partnerships' since 2004. It is legally identical to marriage, yet they are still pushing for 'gay marriage'. We wrestle not against flesh and blood...
 
Galadriel said:
JB, they call their efforts "Marriage Equality." They view their unions as equal (the same) as a marriage and want the title, acceptance, and benefits. Being able to add one's gay partner to health insurance is a small part of a bigger agenda.
Click to expand...


Well, we know that...taxes and the list goes on and on. I'm not against that. But it's not getting therem where they need to get faster. Concessions :giggle: If no judge could marry secularly, we wouldn't be having this exact same problem. Heterosexuals are 1/2 the problem in this equation. :yep: Folks are in this thing together. I don't know when the first civil unions took place in this country where you were not required to have a clergy-approved union...maybe the late 1700's or early 1800's. Everything goes in stages...and I know people are pushing to take the term and broaden it. Maybe if the Church would try and strengthen what it does have right now, any same-sex unions as "normal" would not affect traditional marriages. As it looks now, all marriages are in trouble. I'm not saying I don't believe in the bible...I'm looking at it pragmatically.
 
Last edited:
Starbucks never really got too much of my business before, but I will politely acknowledge their request and take my business elsewhere.
 
JaneBond007 said:
Well, we know that...taxes and the list goes on and on. I'm not against that. But it's not getting therem where they need to get faster. Concessions :giggle: If no judge could marry secularly, we wouldn't be having this exact same problem. Heterosexuals are 1/2 the problem in this equation. :yep: Folks are in this thing together. I don't know when the first civil unions took place in this country where you were not required to have a clergy-approved union...maybe the late 1700's or early 1800's. Everything goes in stages...and I know people are pushing to take the term and broaden it. Maybe if the Church would try and strengthen what it does have right now, any same-sex unions as "normal" would not affect traditional marriages. As it looks now, all marriages are in trouble. I'm not saying I don't believe in the bible...I'm looking at it pragmatically.
Click to expand...

I see the point you're making, JB. If someone wants to add person X to their health insurance then there should be less bureaucratic red tape. I would also point out that you (general "you") don't need to be married to someone for them to have authorization to pick your kid up from school (I have godparents, uncles and aunts listed on my children's emergency forms for school). You can also execute a directive (who you want to make medical decisions on your behalf) and a will (who gets what when you die).

I think you asked a reasonable question of why not go with the financial/legal constructs of a civil union, but I think most of those advocating "same-sex marriage" would answer that that's only part of what they want. They also strive for the social and moral acceptance of such unions, and they want them to be seen and treated as marriage.
 
Coffee Bean & Peets have better options.

I'm fed up with Starbucks this is the last straw - I feel like breaking the ceramic cups I got from there.

Did you know their employees make a habit of "decaf-ing" customers they don't like?
They replace their regular coffee with decaf as "punishment". And sometimes if a customer has a "complicated" order indicating that they're on a diet - such as requesting sugar-free syrup & non fat milk - they take it upon themselves to "fatten them up" with the regular version. Baristas brag about this on a website - I think it's called ihatestarbucks or something.

I don't think the company should tolerate this one bit.

On two occasions I've witnessed them take it upon themselves to "add to" drinks myself.

Once while waiting for my drink I saw this lady who kept asking the barista of they accidentally put caramel in her drink and he flat out refused to check for her. He kept saying "well did you request no caramel? Then it shouldn't be in there"! She could taste it and said she needed to know because she's allergic, but he didn't care.

One time my mom ordered her ice tea with a certian amount of sweetener and it still tasted bitter so she asked for more. She saw the woman turn around and put raspberry sauce instrad of plain sweetener in her drink! When my mom asked the barista if she did she emphatically denied it. Well my mom could TASTE and see the raspberry sauce! She has gestational issues and can't have that stuff.

They gave me sour soymilk in my tea latte last time I was there and acted like I was a bother when I complained that my drink was bitter. After remaking it a few times (apparently with the same milk) they did finally give me my money back.

Starbucks also refuses to give out a full ingredients list to customers with special dietary needs and on at least one occasion has lied about a drink being vegan and it's not.

Yeah now I hate Starbucks. A lot of their baristas are plain jerks anyway.
 
Here's a Christian based Coffee Company :yep:

Here's their 'No Starbucks' ad. :up:

http://www.afa.net/coffee3a.html

At the annual shareholder's meeting on Wednesday, Starbucks CEO, Howard Shultz, told Christians, and all who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life, "we don't want your business".

So why give it to him? Instead, buy your coffee from a company that you know supports the missions you believe in! At Thomas Street Coffee, we will make three great promises…

Great Coffee
Support Pro-Life Causes
Partner with Indigenous farmers.

Here's their website: :yep:

http://afastore.afa.net/p/668/my-brothers-cup-coffee-my-brothers-blend-coffee

http://afastore.afa.net/pl/p/806/thomas-street-coffee-co-easter-specials
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Belle Du Jour
Gay Designers Dolce and Gabanna Oppose SSM
Replies
21
Views
2K
momi
momi
Galadriel
Support Traditional Marriage? You Don't Deserve a Job
Replies
12
Views
2K
Shimmie
Shimmie
CoilyFields
We Need to Pray for the Episcopalian Church NOW!!!
Replies
6
Views
2K
Laela
Laela
Shimmie
Committed to Traditional Marriage ...
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shimmie
Shimmie
divya
7th-day Adventists and the gay marriage issue
Replies
18
Views
4K
divya
divya
Back
Top