Boycott Starbucks? Well...
I stumbled across an article about Starbucks written by Meghan Kleppinger of Concerned Women for America.
She alleges that Starbucks supports Gay Pride events, including some where children will be exposed to "sexually explicit materials and pedophiles as well as the extremely liberal and pro-abortion Planned Parenthood."
Her main point comes down to this:
I overestimated, but discovered that if I drink five grande lattes a week for a year, the total number of lattes would equal 260, coming to a total cost of $1,040. So, in my four post-college years, I could have contributed as much as $4,160 to a company that supports the volunteer work of child abusers, "Pride" events, abortionists, and do I really need to go on? Back to that marketing director's quote: "We're committed to supporting things that matter to our employees and our customers." Um ... HELLO, I am a customer, too!
Hmm. The main reasons I see for boycotts are to avoid being part of/contributing to something I don't believe in, or to try to change the organization so that it no longer continues the objectionable activity.
I already "boycott" some places - Walmart, for example, mainly because of its labor practices, the way it treats its suppliers, and the way it destroys small businesses wherever it goes.
But I'm not one to simply jump on boycott bandwagons.
Sometimes I think there are just too many boycotts for silly reasons.
For example, some people have called for a boycott of ABC because it rigged it's Dancing with the Stars show so that it's Playboy-bimbo ABC soap star Kelly defeated the clearly better old guy John. (Okay, this one did tempt me. He was better!)
Then there's the boycotts that are based on misinformation.
One that's circulating now is one targetting Target for allegedly stating in its donation policies that it will support only "gay and lesbian causes", it has been accused of refusing to support veterans groups, and of being - gasp - French owned.
Mon Dieu!
But those Target charges are part of an urban legend. Target is American owned, it has supported many veterans' groups and projects (such as the World War II Memorial), and its official policy contains no such statement about "gay and lesbian causes."
So you have to be careful to check all calls for boycotts.
As for this Starbuck's one, I haven't found anything yet about this alleged child abuse/Planned Parenthood connection (other than this article).
Starbucks has been falsely targetted in the past for allegedly not supporting our troops and boycotting Israel - neither rumor apparently true. It has also been criticized for, among other things, where it gets its coffee supplies (child labor accustaions, etc), about which there was apparently some truth. (Conflicting reports about this one.)
Anyway, if truth be told, I don't like Starbucks coffee anyway.
The coffee is too strong/bitter for my taste, and too many of its other beverage confections are calorie bombs.
If I'm going to drink corporate coffee, I prefer Tim Hortons. I like Canadians.
Better yet is coffee at the local small coffee shops. I think we should support local businesses on principle.
Besides, I bet Kelly drinks Starbucks coffee.
She alleges that Starbucks supports Gay Pride events, including some where children will be exposed to "sexually explicit materials and pedophiles as well as the extremely liberal and pro-abortion Planned Parenthood."
Her main point comes down to this:
I overestimated, but discovered that if I drink five grande lattes a week for a year, the total number of lattes would equal 260, coming to a total cost of $1,040. So, in my four post-college years, I could have contributed as much as $4,160 to a company that supports the volunteer work of child abusers, "Pride" events, abortionists, and do I really need to go on? Back to that marketing director's quote: "We're committed to supporting things that matter to our employees and our customers." Um ... HELLO, I am a customer, too!
Hmm. The main reasons I see for boycotts are to avoid being part of/contributing to something I don't believe in, or to try to change the organization so that it no longer continues the objectionable activity.
I already "boycott" some places - Walmart, for example, mainly because of its labor practices, the way it treats its suppliers, and the way it destroys small businesses wherever it goes.
But I'm not one to simply jump on boycott bandwagons.
Sometimes I think there are just too many boycotts for silly reasons.
For example, some people have called for a boycott of ABC because it rigged it's Dancing with the Stars show so that it's Playboy-bimbo ABC soap star Kelly defeated the clearly better old guy John. (Okay, this one did tempt me. He was better!)
Then there's the boycotts that are based on misinformation.
One that's circulating now is one targetting Target for allegedly stating in its donation policies that it will support only "gay and lesbian causes", it has been accused of refusing to support veterans groups, and of being - gasp - French owned.
Mon Dieu!
But those Target charges are part of an urban legend. Target is American owned, it has supported many veterans' groups and projects (such as the World War II Memorial), and its official policy contains no such statement about "gay and lesbian causes."
So you have to be careful to check all calls for boycotts.
As for this Starbuck's one, I haven't found anything yet about this alleged child abuse/Planned Parenthood connection (other than this article).
Starbucks has been falsely targetted in the past for allegedly not supporting our troops and boycotting Israel - neither rumor apparently true. It has also been criticized for, among other things, where it gets its coffee supplies (child labor accustaions, etc), about which there was apparently some truth. (Conflicting reports about this one.)
Anyway, if truth be told, I don't like Starbucks coffee anyway.
The coffee is too strong/bitter for my taste, and too many of its other beverage confections are calorie bombs.
If I'm going to drink corporate coffee, I prefer Tim Hortons. I like Canadians.
Better yet is coffee at the local small coffee shops. I think we should support local businesses on principle.
Besides, I bet Kelly drinks Starbucks coffee.
posted by A Secular Franciscan | 8:17 AM
6 Comments:
I haven't heard of a boycott for Starbucks until I read that article. But, as you said, the coffee isn't my type anyway.
I wonder how Jesus would treat homosexuals.
I don't know if I could live w/o Starbucks, j/k...haha
Anonymous – how would Jesus treat homosexuals?
He might cure them; he would likely treat them with the same care and concern he did prostitutes, lepers, thieves, the possessed and all the other troubled souls he met; and, for those who sought forgiveness for their actions, I can imagine him saying something like, “Your sins are forgiven, now go and sin no more.”
Sort of like the way he might treat me, for that matter.
In my understanding there is no right nor wrong. If we are created in him image " and we are " we are spirit being meaning no male nor female. We are just is. LIFE expressing the one and only divine.
I love starbucks. WOOHOO best coffee in the world. I support them. I live by them and I will continue to drink it...
Have a nice day.
Playboy-bimbo ABC soap star Kelly defeated the clearly better old guy John. (Okay, this one did tempt me. He was better!)
Absolutely! John O'Hurley rocks!!
Post a Comment
<< Home