"Starbucks CEO: If You Support Traditional Marriage, We Don’t Want Your Business"

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on March 24, 2013 at 5:50pm

Wow! I am not a fan of Starbucks, but they are not getting any bucks from me at hearing thi haha

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 24, 2013 at 6:25pm

If this is true (and I did not verify it) then we see a double standard, one that we are already aware of. The CEO of Chick-Fil-A got blasted for sharing his views on marriage and this one either gets a pass or is touted. This demonstrates that you either align with certain views or you get demonized (so to speak) in soceity today.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Grazer #E2H on March 25, 2013 at 10:17am

I support his stance on same sex marriage, I don't totally support how the CEO has gone about this. He's entitled to his views but should he have brought the company into this? Maybe he had to, maybe there is no difference, the CEO of Electronic Arts has also come out in support of same sex marriage. There another interpretation on the exchange that works for me;

Shareholder - your stance is losing us money in certain areas

CEO - if you don't like my stance, you can always take your money elsewhere.


We're relying on reports so we will all take our interpretation of what's reported. But I won't be boycotting Starbucks.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 25, 2013 at 10:23am

So what is your take regarding the CEO of Chick-Fil-A getting blasted over expressing his views which is the opposite of what was reported regarding the Starbucks CEO?

Permalink Reply by Grazer #E2H on March 25, 2013 at 10:28am

How the Chick-Fil-A CEO got treated was out of order, some went too far and many LGBT folk came out and said so. There is a genuine debate to be had but it will never be had whilst people are jumping all over views and more interested in abusing the other side (some Christians are as bad as some LBGT)

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 25, 2013 at 10:39am

I am glad you think it was out of order. It was the media that blew it up more than the LBGT and it is the same media that attacked Chick-Fil-A that will give the Starbucks guy a pass. That was mostly the point of my comment ... double standard.

 

I believe the CEO at Starbucks has the freedom to have his opinion and I have the freedom to disagree and to choose to spend my money there or not. 

Permalink Reply by Grazer #E2H on March 25, 2013 at 10:57am

The media is all about double standards, its why I'm very selective about who/what I read

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on March 25, 2013 at 5:39pm

Grazer,

 

How can you support something that goes against what your Lord calls sin? How do you reconciled that in your head and heart. How are you able to support sin and believe you are in the light?

Permalink Reply by Grazer #E2H on March 26, 2013 at 6:31am

Because I don't see how God would condemn a monogamous loving relationship, no where in the Bible is that condemned. The passages that relate to "homosexuality" (I use the " deliberately since it wasn't a word that existed before the 1800's) aren't relating to this situation. I am bouncing between several views but ultimately, I see no reason to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 26, 2013 at 6:39am

Rom 1:25-27 NASB  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  (26)  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,  (27)  and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Permalink Reply by Grazer #E2H on March 26, 2013 at 6:43am

Just one question before I proceed here; are you going to ban me for responding to this? You know that once this gets started, it won't end until you close the thread because no one here will let it go and I will respond to pretty much everything.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 26, 2013 at 6:49am

I cannot tell you that you will be banned for responding, but it has the potential based on past history to lead to you being banned (which you already know or you would not have asked the question). I would suggest that you not go there.

Note: you will not be banned for your view, but the way you interact puts you at risk. I will not allow others to attack you, but they are free to strongly address your view. As long as the two things can stay separated (addressing the view versus addressing the person), which they rarely do, the discussion would be acceptable, but it will not stay civil. You know that and I know that.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page