Starbucks, Same-Sex Marriage and Getting Facts Straight

Even with this guy’s generous, benefit-of-the-doubt posture toward Starbucks and their pro-“diversity” agenda, one only needs to do minimalist research to see that the corporate values of Starbucks run perpendicular to those who have a Biblical worldview. This guy appears to be yet another emergent evangelical who shudders over the potential fallout taking a cultural stand might have on the unsaved. I wasn’t the least bit surprised to see a book written by Rob Bell on his booklist attached to his blog.

I’m not a big coffee drinker and there are three Starbucks within one mile of our office so if I’m meeting someone for a coffee meeting, it’s likely that it has to be at a Starbucks. But given a choice, I’d prefer to support a company which doesn’t hold a hostile posture to my views. Why do corporations need to take these liberal positions at all if they are in the money-making business?

prefer MacDonalds’ regular coffee.

The comments may or may not have been distorted ( I tend to think they were). But even if they were true, I don’t think there would be an especially compelling case to boycott Starbucks, if you like their product and are inclined to pay for it. Just because a CEO allegedly makes a statement like that doesn’t mean that is reflective of everyone in the company, and for that matter, doesn’t mean that every other company actively supports “traditional values.” Would Apple or Disney, for example, be considered any better, just because their CEOs haven’t allegedly made controversial statements? For that matter, the owner of your local independent coffee shop might just be a practicing homosexual actively supporting same-sex marriage, but just doesn’t have enough of a high profile to get quoted nationally.

Personally, I don’t buy Starbucks because 1. They closed our local one down a few years ago in that big corporate downsize, and 2. It’s a bit overpriced (I roast and brew my own). But I will not avoid them based on alleged remarks like this, or hold local employees or franchise owners responsible for some foolishness in the press. We live in a world that will continue to grow generally hostile to Christianity and Christian thought, anyway. If we avoided every corporation who opposed our “worldview,” well, I’d probably never get to eat out, since we only have 3 Chick-Fil-As in the entire state, none of which are within 2 hours of Marshall… ;)

I agree with Greg. I have never been a fan of boycotts. I just don’t find them helpful. They usually cause a backlash on the other side and ends up doing the opposite of what the organizers wanted to do. Now I do participate in anti-boycotts - I drove out of my way to go to Chick-Fil-A. :) I am not a big consumer of Starbucs, so I won’t be a factor either way.

What about the non-Christians at Starbucks who need the gospel? My pastor spends his study time at Starbucks and regularly has people come up and ask him questions about the Bible. If we try to vote with our dollars in every circumstance, aren’t we also voting with our feet that the people near where we spend our dollars can go fly a kite too?

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.”

1 Cor 10:25-26

Shaynus, how far do you push that analogy? I realize it is not exactly analogous, but would you use the same logic to justify frequenting strip joints or taverns? Is there ever a time to reject a business as unacceptable for Christians to patronize, regardless of the witnessing opportunities?

Like some of you, I’m ambivalent about Christian boycotts for the most part. But sometimes there are companies who are so in your face about pushing an unbiblical agenda that if I have a choice I will choose otherwise.

Yes, they are just selling coffee. But they are taking their profits from your purchases to fund anti-gay marriage initiatives. You can bet the pro-gay marriage people will do all they can to de-fund Chick-fil-a, the Koch brothers, and everybody else they can. But we sit back passively and give them our money? I think not!

I think the problem with boycotts is consistency. If you are going to boycott every company that that is involved in supporting and promoting immorality, you are soon going to be growing your own food and raising llamas to weave clothing. It is not possible to be consistent, so folks have to pick and choose which causes mean something to them… which often makes people sound like hypocrites, when that is not their intent. It’s very confusing.

I’m not against ‘boycotts’. We all make consumer choices for different reasons. I don’t buy Starbucks because I am not going to pay that kind of money just to look trendy. I eat Chik-fil-A at every possible opportunity because they are simply the best chicken sandwiches EVER. The fact that one purports itself to be the enemy of all that is moral and the other has business practices I approve of gives me a good feeling about how I spend my money. I get that.

When I hear about this stuff, however, I always wonder… If someone wants to boycott the most immoral industry on the planet, shouldn’t they start with Hollywood?

I like boycotts and buycotts, but then I tend to be more of an activist due to my insane fascination with politics. I also don’t think that boycotts are some kind of panacea technique that ends liberal activism or whatever. I also don’t see focusing on one boycott while other worthy candidates are waiting to feel the wrath of our collective economic power for their sins as well is an adequate excuse to primly announce that we “don’t do boycotts”.

I don’t really see boycotting Starbucks as a “must”, but what I do think is in order is a “reflective” attitude toward our…scratch that….God’s resources. There may be just as big or perhaps a more valid argument to avoid Starbucks (as Greg Linscott noted above) simply because they are over-priced and I can find better value elsewhere thus freeing that money for better purposes. (Seriously, I can feed the family of a Cuban pastor for a WEEK on what it costs to get one hugo-manifico-double-entendre-mocha-soy-foamarific coffee at Starbucks!) I also think that if I can choose to support the mom-and-pop coffee house on the corner that invites people to do their Bible studies there and the local church bands to play on Friday nights as opposed to the mega-chain that uses a portion of their profits to support anti-Biblical positions (and Starbucks DOES that), then that may be an expedient choice to make on multiple levels.

So, boycotts may not be one’s…er…”cup of tea” to mix a metaphor, but thoughtful use of purchasing power might just be.

Randomly thinking….

1. I don’t expect Starbucks to support or oppose same-sex marriage
2. I expect Starbucks to do the capitalist thing and market their coffee as broadly as they can to maximize the return for their stockholders
3. Because of point # 2 … they stay out of the fray of point # 1
4. Every major corporation is the same. Why should they be involved in a morality debate?! Why should we expect them to choose sides?

Christians will not win the culture wars (and I observe … we are losing!) by boycotts or buycotts. And our task is not to win the culture wars it is to herald the Gospel, disciple believers, and build churches

Starbucks has 160,000 employees. I have no way to know but I suppose there are thousands of Christians employed by Starbucks.

Ancient history but worth considering: Remember the P&G Logo controversy

I buy the best product at the best price. I will continue to frequent Starbucks when I wish

…Jim, they do choose sides. They promote these unbiblical agendas in their work places (like gay marriage), they give financial aid to fund unbiblical causes (like gay marriage), and they endorse politicians/policies that pursue unbiblical ends (like gay marriage). Often, they do this because of (not despite) your second point - it’s popular.

[Greg Long]

Shaynus, how far do you push that analogy? I realize it is not exactly analogous, but would you use the same logic to justify frequenting strip joints or taverns? Is there ever a time to reject a business as unacceptable for Christians to patronize, regardless of the witnessing opportunities?

Like some of you, I’m ambivalent about Christian boycotts for the most part. But sometimes there are companies who are so in your face about pushing an unbiblical agenda that if I have a choice I will choose otherwise.

Notice the verse says not to reject it on ground of conscience. There are other grounds that are firmly available to the believer to reject something in the marketplace i.e. it’s pure sin that anyone can see. This provokes a larger discussion of what the conscience was in 1 Cor 10 that I may not want to get into here, but setting was key to Paul’s argument. In one setting (a home or a market) meat was one thing and clean. But at a temple meat was something else entirely, and that was determined by setting.

I do think Paul was pushing the believers to not reject the fullness of what was available to them in the marketplace on grounds of scripture. It’s all God’s in the first place. The earth is the Lord’s. To a point let’s not retreat from the marketplace because we might get smudged with idol meat because such a retreat makes it appear to others that the idol really is real and really has power over the earth.

There was a controversy a few years back when HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp, bought out Zondervan. Among other of their ventures, they market and produce pornography. So, if you buy an NIV, or even Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, you are supporting a known pornographer.

Have you used PayPal or eBay lately? They support abortion through funding of Planned Parenthood.

Susan has already pointed out the whole Hollywood thing.

I daresay if we dig deeply enough, we can find dilemmas such as this in just about every good and service we pay for. I mean, even here in the SI context, we really shouldn’t buy our homeschool curriculum from BJU Press, because they had Clarence Sexton, a known KJV Only, speak at their Bible Conference… :rolleyes:

The problem with a story like this is it’s a reaction to an alleged comment. There has been no significant change in their behavior, not to mention the other corporations that do more or less the same thing (if not more so, potentially), only out of the spotlight and scrutiny of the media. Again, if you’re going to follow this line of reasoning consistently, you’re going to avoid a lot more than just Starbucks. In fact, you might as well become a Luddite, as many tech companies alone that actively fund and support same-sex marriage, starting with Microsoft, Google, Apple, eBay…

Ever check your health insurance provider?

• One rejoices in the financial provision and healing provided through that agency ….
• Same agency has paid for someone else’s abortion

I’m not one to jump on big bandwagons for boycotts, but there are times I won’t shop someplace just because of some of their positions or practices - and I let them know. I emailed Hardee’s and told them we would not be patronizing them, due to their highly sexualized (at least at the time) commercials.

No, this doesn’t cover every place with unbiblical philosophies or whatever, but at least I feel better about not supporting some places.

But I don’t even like coffee.