Starbucks, Same-Sex Marriage and Getting Facts Straight

For an interesting take that we should NOT boycott Starbucks, read Russell Moore’s take:

http://www.russellmoore.com/2012/03/25/should-christians-boycott-starbu…

But if you have time, you should read the comments too because there are some good points made in response.

(I should note that although it didn’t cross my mind until someone in the comments pointed it out, it is interesting that SBTS “proudly brews Starbucks coffee” in their cafe. :) )

Please don’t boycott Peet’s

For me this is not a black and white issue but a sliding scale. If I were to try to boycott all the companies that provide same-sex benefits, for example, I wouldn’t be able to shop anywhere except Hobby Lobby and eat anywhere except Chick-fil-A perhaps.

But again, some companies are so blatant, so outspoken, so militant in their anti-biblical stances, that if I have a choice, I will choice to steward my money elsewhere (which is ironic, I know, since we’re talking about $5 coffee drinks). I don’t actually drink coffee, but I do like an iced mocha now and again. Because I am not a coffee snob, I’m perfectly fine getting it at McDonalds (I know some of you coffee drinkers are spewing coffee at your computer screen upon reading those words), or perhaps at Caribou Coffee or a local coffee shop. I have those choices, whereas others don’t, so I don’t judge those who choose to continue to patronize Starbucks.

If, for example, I have a choice between Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Menards (which I do), and I know one of them is outspoken in support of gay marriage, it will influence my choice as to where to spend my money. I don’t necessarily see it as a “boycott” or think that I will somehow change their corporate policy, I’m just making an informed choice as to where to spend God’s money.

Maybe I’m just evil, but I don’t bother paying attention to what silly CEO’s believe on Biblical issues. I don’t care what they believe. I do care, however, if their coffee is good.

Behold, the best cafe in the world, a few steps away from my old apartment in Camporotondo-Etneo, Sicily. The second one is the second best cafe in the world, in Motta San Anastasia, Sicily. BTW - the guy smoking on the left is not me …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9m-ZKc93Q

We have a seminary student who interns in our church who is employed at Starbucks. We have a man in our church who was homeless when we met him when we were providing meals. He now works at Starbucks and is becoming self-supporting. Maye they should find work elsewhere according to the rationale of some. I rarely go to Starbucks because when I’m out I prefer Wawa hazelnut (if you don’t know what Wawa is you are not in a civilized area of the country).

Individuals who have the time and interest to research these issues and choose to boycott have that right. However if you look hard enough you will find something in most companies to call for boycott. Why not boycott companies that provide benefits to same-sex couples, or under Obamacare provide will insurance that covers abortions? We shouldn’t be surprised that sinners act like sinners and promote unbiblical values. It may be tough to be in the world but not of the world but the answer is not to isolate from the world.

Of course there may be companies that are exist to be hostile to Christians, won’t employ Christians, and actively oppose Christianity. Boycott is not off the table but should be used judiciously and we should choose our battles carefully. And when possible, when given a choice, we can support companies that promote biblical values. But if their products aren’t good and prices aren’t competitive it’s not a slam dunk.

Here’s an interesting list of who the homosexual community views as corporations that are supportive of their agenda…

http://www.queeried.com/10-pro-gay-companies-to-go-and-spend-all-your-money-with/

Greg Long: even just looking at that list, I wonder if you would be able to find a job with any major corporation on the West Coast…

[Steve Davis]

I rarely go to Starbucks because when I’m out I prefer Wawa hazelnut (if you don’t know what Wawa is you are not in a civilized area of the country).

Can’t disagree with this. They are all over Maryland where my parents live. Whenever I head south to go back home, the furthest south I have found a Wawa is in Virginia. I wish they had them here, but no such luck. Not only is their coffee great, it’s reasonably priced, too.

Perhaps a boycott would encourage more Christian entrepreneurship :)

But I would say that you could probably apply Romans 14 here. If it is genuinely offensive to Christians (and I, for one, am offended) and it bothers your conscience then don’t go there. But since the CEO was so blatant about his beliefs it would be hard for me personally to buy anything from that shop. If Wal Mart released a statement saying “We hate Christians and loathe the fact that they buy anything from our store” I would likely consider not shopping there.

But then again, with #4 on that list above (Microsoft) if we all boycotted it, nobody would be commenting on here.

I do think Greg Long made 2 good points; that it is a case-by-case basis, and that if a company so blatantly expresses their disdain for the values that Christians subscribe to, we are free to exercise out stewardship toward one company over another.

However, Greg is not right with God, 3 Thessalonians 1:1 says that believers must consume coffee :)

What I find odd, was that when this happened to Chick-Fil-A, we were all up in arms (and rightfully so). So how is what some of us are advocating any different than what the organizers of the boycott of Chick-Fil-A was trying to do? I think we all know there is no difference. It’s a glaring inconsistency. Certainly we all have a right to boycott, but I just find that they are not productive.

[rogercarlson] Certainly we all have a right to boycott, but I just find that they are not productive.

I’m still not advocating a Starbucks boycott. However, I don’t agree that boycotts aren’t or can’t be productive. The left (Gays, African-Americans, Feminists, etc…) consistently use them with substantial impact. The mere “Threat” of a boycott is enough to make many companies capitulate to the demands. The reason they are not productive to the conservatives or more specifically conservative Christians is because we lack the unity and the will to make them work. I’ve seen them totally work back in the 70’s and 80’s. Now, most evangelicals and fundamentalists feel activism is either passe’ or somehow unbiblical and others see them as a distraction or a poor testimony. Meanwhile, bit by bit our culture has been lost. I would equate the cultural lethargy of this generation of legitimate believers to be the equivalent of what was found in the 50’s and 60’s when we had the Sexual Revolution, antiauthoritarianism, liberal activism and rise of secular antagonism toward religion all burst onto the scene. Falwell/Robertson organized a brief interlude in the 70’s/80’s when we indeed DID have clout, but we’ve truly ceded that at this point with our lack of unity and general apathy toward such actions.

My sneakers (tennis shoes or runners just to be politically correct), my computers (my old PC and my new Mac), my blue jeans, my websurfing, and my travel. This would take all the fun out of life. Fortunately I don’t drink coffee!

Personally I listened to what the guy said several times. I didn’t take him to be anti-Christian … and he’s simply saying that his company is tolerant—by choice. Be nice if Christians had this kind of conviction. Why shouldn’t he be tolerant? He’s lost! If we boycott Starbucks then we must need go out of the world and become monastic.

Which Greg are you addressing, Jeff? I’m going to assume it’s Greg Linscott, because those weren’t arguments I was making. And no, if you choose not to purchase from Starbucks (notice I did not use the word “boycott”), you do not have to go out of the world and become monastic. Maybe it’s as simple as making a specific choice as to buy coffee at a company other than one that outspokenly promotes gay marriage, involving itself in the political process. As I’ve said three times now on this thread, this is not all-or-nothing, black-and-white, but rather a case-by-case decision.

I really wish we’d be talking more about Monsanto and Nestle. They are moral outrages in many more ways than starbucks. Right up there with hollywood.