Faith

Did Anti-Gay Charges Cause Starbucks’ CEO to Back Out of a Christian Leadership Conference?

Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz Cancels Willow Creek SpeechHoward Shultz, the CEO of Starbucks, has unexpectedly backed out of a planned address at this week’s Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit.

Some are questiong if Shultz’s decision, which is still not reflected on the summit’s web site, is based upon a recent petition that was launched by Asher Huey, a liberal political consultant. In his petition, Huey labeled the house of worship “anti-gay” and railed against Shultz’s participation.

For Schultz, this Willow Creek appearance would have been a first. To advocates, it signified something sinister that would risk the company’s stance as an example of inclusiveness. In describing his initiative on the progressive Change.org web site, Huey writes:

The church that is sponsoring the event on August 11th and 12th has a long history anti-gay persecution. For decades the church was a member of Exodus International, the organization that seeks to cure homosexuality through dangerous conversion therapy. The church split ways with the group, but in doing so stated that it wasn’t a change in belief but a change in focus. The church also has their own “outreach” programs to the LGBT community to spread their anti-lgbt message.

While questions are certainly being raised about the petition‘s involvement in Shultz’s decision not to attend, at present Huey has only collected 787 signatures (and that’s after a week of the poll being posted). Perhaps people love Starbucks’ coffee too much to buy into the criticisms? When taken in sum, this petition has hardly setoff a firestorm of debate. So, one wonders: Was the decision not to speak made for other reasons?

Interestingly, Christianity Today (CT) reports that “Gina Woods,” a woman who claims to be in the communications team at Starbucks, posted the following in the petition’s comments section:

I work for Starbucks in Communications. I wanted to let you all know that Howard is not speaking at Willow Creek. The conference web site has just not been updated.

CT then conducted an interview with Woods and received a similar response. She said:

“I can only confirm that Howard Schultz will not be speaking at the Willow Creek Leadership Conference. Unfortunately, the event website was not updated to reflect this change.”

As of Thursday afternoon, the following information was still posted on the conference’s web site:

Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz Cancels Willow Creek Speech

CT also wrote that Andrew Marin (based on a Tweet he sent earlier in the day), an individual who works to bridge divides between homosexuals and the evangelical community, would be replacing Schultz at the conference. The Tweet explicitly mentions Starbucks. Considering the allegations behind Shultz’s exit, this choice is curious:

Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz Cancels Willow Creek Speech

The leadership conference is held each year by the Willow Creek Association and, this year, it is expected to draw 165,000 attendees tuning in from 450 different locations. Each year, members of the “business, education, government and social sectors” are brought together to share their thoughts and insights on matters of leadership.

Their talks are then applied to both Christian and church leadership. Below, read part of the description given on the leadership summit’s web site:

The Global Leadership Summit welcomes leaders from all these sectors and fully believes that the maximum influence and impact of the Church is felt when all of its Christ-centered leaders are at the forefront of establishing and growing well led local churches, companies, schools, governments and social enterprises. This is the Church at its best! This is when God’s love and care inevitably spills out into our neighborhoods, towns and cities through acts of love, justice, mercy, service and restoration.

The decision not to attend the conference, regardless of the reasoning, has given advocates and bloggers something to talk about. Considering the ramifications on either end of the spectrum, Starbucks isn‘t likely to release the exact reasons for Schultz’s decision not to speak.

Comments (119)

1 2 3
  • SenorStrange
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 11:34am

    “history anti-gay persecution” Translation…“history of standing up against sexual perverts who seek to destroy morals in society”.

    Report Post »  
    • saranda
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:32pm

      Like Hinkle the Indiana state senator? Latest in a long line of someone protecting “morals in society” then getting caught solicating gay sex.
      Why is this story becoming so common place that it barely gets coverage?

      Report Post »  
    • glorygirl
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:46pm

      I am not sure that these people are perverted at all. They are looking for someone to care about them and I do believe if the Church would really love them as Jesus loved them enough to die for them and they would love Jesus more than their own ways and judgemental attitudes, they might see clearly enough to do something that would help and not Hurt. Jesus was quoted in the bible and it is written in red that if you can pull the plank out of your own eye , and me too, thenyou can then see plainly how to help , not hurt or damage further, someone else. I guess what I am saying is when we Love extravagently like Jesus did we will make an extravagent mark for good on our society today as Jesus and his Disciples did in their society so many years ago. The same Jesus who lived and loved then still loves today but who does he have to speak thru today? Sometimes Love is tough but it always has the persons best interest in mind if it is real genuine Love :)

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 11:58pm

      Glorygirl, you might want to look up the Christian definition of love, which means loving and doing the right things. And then the Bible says what those right things are.

      And Saranda is shoving tolerance and diversity down the rest of our throats while practicing anti-Christian bigotry.

      Report Post »  
  • affinnity
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 11:25am

    What’s the point?

    Report Post » affinnity  
  • affinnity
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 11:25am

    If the guy doesn‘t want to speak that’s his own business. Who cares?

    Report Post » affinnity  
  • DAGNY
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:59am

    Oh who cares?! Their coffee is bad, the “ambiance” is annoying, and the lines are ridiculous. Gave up Starbucks years ago when Seattle’s Best opened. Really good coffee without all the squatters hanging out taking up space.

    Report Post »  
  • copatriots
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:46am

    @ HollowPoints,

    I won’t attempt to argue your position. You have heard the arguments from Christians and I can add nothing more.

    But here is my question, why is sexual orientation the primary manner in which you choose to be identified? Why is there no compassion, or none obvious anyway, that most fundamental Christians don’t want their children exposed to that lifestyle? Shouldn’t that be their choice as the parents of how they are raising their children? Have you seen “Up Your Alley” pics from San Francisco of the orgies that occur on a public street? Why is that behavior legal? Should heteros start having public orgies as well?

    Report Post »  
  • chickster
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:26am

    It’s kind of sad,he had a chance to reach appr.165,000 people. maybe influence a few into what he believes. How did he become a CEO without conviction?

    Report Post » chickster  
    • ericjonolsen
      Posted on August 18, 2011 at 4:30am

      How did our President become President without experience. And just how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:51am

    You know, it is possible to hate the sin but love the sinner. God does and Christians can and do the same. Most of us do. Liberal anti Christian biggots don’t get that.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Thomas
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:09am

      How can one choose to be homosexual and also claim to love God? What they are saying is I will love God as long as He conforms to my desires. Homosexual do not have sex the mimic but the word was simply created to explain a mental condition in which someone is unable to deal with reality. There are no laws against homosexual however. What one does in their bedroom is up to them but when they come out to teach and lead others into their sin that is where the problem lies. The bible didn’t say go hunt people down in their bedrooms and punish them but actually capital punishment was only used toward those people came out to teach and lead others into their actions. Capital punishment in Israel was not against the sin perse but against teaching others it was okay.

      Report Post » Thomas  
    • Sines314
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:22pm

      Leviticus 11 discusses what we can and cannot eat (Leviticus is the book of the Bible containing the passage about homosexuality being an abomination).

      It mentions that eating pigs (verse 7) or “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters” (verse 10) is an abomination. It is an equal sin to be gay as it is to eat bacon or lobster. Have you done either? How can you love God then?

      Report Post »  
  • NWalters78
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:31am

    Starbucks craps on the troops, they endorse Obama, and now they slight Christians. All of this is unsurprising. It supports why I refuse to buy their $5 a cup of coffee BS. Denis Leary had it right, I WANT COFFEE FLAVORED COFFEE! I don’t want a Cappucino, Mochacino, Chococino or Al Pacino! WHAT THE EFF! www. WHATTHEEFF.com! And one more thing, barrista, don’t sneer at me about my coffee choice, OK? I am the customer! You’re 16 years old, you don’t sh#t about sh#t, you’re working a counter, and pull up your effing pants!!!!!!

    Aaaaaaaaaagh!

    These are some of the active voters. Come on asteroid, hit now.

    Report Post » NWalters78  
  • nysparkie
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:02am

    Coward. Corporate profits over your God. DIP WAD.

    Report Post » nysparkie  
    • NWalters78
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:32am

      No different than the Toms Shoes dude calling Christians, besides his holier than thou and ubertolerant self, homophobes and bad conservatives…. Ugh…..

      Report Post » NWalters78  
  • PIL
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 8:45am

    Let’s be fair, people. If Starbucks was endorsing a gay event the Traditional Values Coalition and the AFA would be raving mad. Even ultra-conservative Ann Coulter got burned by the folks at WorldNetDaily after she dared speak to gay Republicans.

    Besides, we all do things that are irrating to others, look at Chik-Fil-A, they close on Sundays. Look at Target, they refuse to sell guns and tobacco. As for Starbucks, they should stop being PC and endorse every event that can drive more revenue.
    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

    Report Post » PIL  
  • soulstormwriter
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 8:35am

    See my Open Letter to Howard Schultz at http://www.blog.optimuschoice.com . As a former Starbucks devotee, a student of the business, a student of christian history and theology, a blogger, speaker, writer, and an attendee at the conference, here is my response. The intro follows and full article at bruceleesmith.co

    An Open Letter to Howard Schultz, CEO Starbucks

    Howard, 
    I fear I must say, “Goodbye”.  (and, you have no idea how hard that is!)

    I am writing this letter from the lobby of a large church where I am attending the Leadership Summit 2011, hosted by Willow Creek Community Church (more on the central theme of “leadership” in a bit).  Though I have attended many such conferences before, and in fact, have studied this church and its culture on the Master’s level at a prominent institution, I was compelled to attend this year, largely because, you were on the schedule.  Every year they bring great leaders, secular and Christian, but this year was different, for me.  Hmm.  Howard, I just learned, we have a problem.
    Let me back up a bit.  You see, Mr.  Schultz, I have followed your company and your leadership since I was in college.  I have studied all the research on the company’s birth, your journey,  what has led to the success of your company, I have read your books, I have read the Ivy League business studies.  In fact, in my book, Soul Storm: finding God amidst disaster, I used the story of Starbucks as a critical illustration for one of my

    Report Post »  
    • llleslie
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:17pm

      Good for you! I attended the conference at a satellite facility in Pennsylvania and this is what I sent to Starbucks:

      To:
      Howard Schultz Chairman, CEO, and President, Starbucks Corporation

      I was asked today to send you a Christian-like email concerning your decision to back out of the Global Leadership Summit. I think I was asked to make you feel better about your decision. I cannot do that. I can tell you that I believe you made a bad decision. Did you choose money over values, money over faith and money over leadership qualities? You say, “It’s not just about winning but winning the right way.” Do you really believe that? You chose to walk away from a large group of people who in this politically correct society are not allowed to be upset about your choice. We are called un-Christian if we voice dissent. You chose to be “extorted” by a group that calls for the silencing of Christian beliefs. This is a group that says what we believe is Hate Speech. I was asked to support you and buy a coffee and buy your book. Why? I ask myself. Onward: How Starbucks Fought For Its Life Without Losing its Soul. I don’t think so. What would you do if a group of Christians decided to boycott Starbucks because of a speech you would supposedly give to the GLBT organization? Would you back out of their conference? I believe you would not. I believe you would expect “religious” people to understand. I could be wrong. I will do this for you – I will pray for you. And I will pray

      Report Post »  
  • mllyjul
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 8:31am

    Why was a non-Christian asked to speak at a Christian leadership conference in the first place? For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 2 Corinthians 6:14

    Report Post »  
  • tom cline
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:01am

    I guess we know what God he truly serves, Money, The Church should have no relationship with the gay community other than redemtive. I‘m not talking hate I’m talking about principles and a belief system that says homosexuality is wrong. There is only one unforgiven sin, To reject Jesus Christ.

    Report Post » tom cline  
    • hillbillyinny
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:15am

      Well put and I 100% agree with your statement!

      Love the sinner, hate the sin!

      Report Post »  
    • bigdaddyt46
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 7:46am

      @tom cline

      you’re wrong. even rejection of Jesus in forgiveable(if the person repents) the 2 unforgivable sins are blasphemy and rejection of the Holy Spirit.

      Report Post » bigdaddyt46  
  • I Fly Low
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 5:30am

    How did this whole “homophobic” thing come around? I don’t know anyone that is “afraid” of a queer,just disgusted. They should keep that sick stuff away from normal people and do what ever they want in there own little world, I don‘t give a rats’ ass.

    Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 12:03am

      It’s what the left uses to try to silence opposition.

      Report Post »  
  • YoshiFD3S
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:26am

    I think the majority of people have a hard time grasping the concept that just because a person doesn’t APPROVE of something, it doesn’t mean that they are some kind of anti-(word here) or are biggots of any sort.

    I am a happily married heterosexual man, and I believe that marriage for 1, should be about more than just a piece of paper, and 2 that it should ONLY be between a man and a woman.

    Can a man and a man create life? NO. Can 2 women create life ALONE? NO.

    Tell you what, if you want to have a society that is ALL gay, be my guest! You’d all be extinct within 100 years. There’s a REASON why men and women are BORN with an instinctive “lust” towards the OPPOSITE sex.

    YOU ARE NOT BORN GAY. SORRY LADY GAGA. I can guarantee you that there comes a point in every gay/lesbian person’s life that they made a conscious decision to continue with a homosexual lifestyle. And unfortunately, over the last few generations not only has homosexuality been accepted, but now it is embraced. If parents actually had an OUNCE of moral fiber above and beyond their own prideful ignorance, then they would have taught their children that there is RIGHT and there is WRONG…and there is a REASON why only ONE man and ONE woman can create life.

    I completely agree that the homosexuality “card” is played as an arguement or debate chip in the same way that racism is. It’s baseless and just plain STUPID. “Oh, you don’t practice homosexuality? Then you must HATE gays, right??” .

    Report Post » YoshiFD3S  
    • scarebear83
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:51am

      @ YoshiFD3S Exactly my friend. I would go a step further and say that if one claims they are “born that way” then they must concede that pedophiles and polygamists are born with their certain sexual desires and should not be looked negatively upon. Of course I’m sure someone will say “that’s not the same thing“ or ”well it’s just wrong, or a mental disease.” So then the response would be, “So homosexuality is ok because people can‘t help that they’re born that way thus they should have rights based upon the fact that they can‘t help who they’re attracted to yet pedophiles and polygamists shouldn‘t marry even though they exhibit the same characteristic of being ’born that way?’” The arguments just don’t add up, unless there is a much simpler explanation…. choice. You choose who you marry, you choose who to love, you choose whether or not to be gay.

      Report Post » scarebear83  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:42am

      Did you CHOOSE to be hetero? No? Then what makes you think I CHOSE to be homosexual?

      As for the simpler explanation, there is one. HARM.

      Homosexuals, and yes even polygamists, do not necessarily HARM their partners. People with a propensity for pedophilia or rape DO. People who are “born that way” and can only get sexual gratification with the harm of another cannot be trusted in polite society.

      And if you cannot comprehend that distinction, then there is no further assistance I can be in helping you out of the mire of your own ignorance.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • scarebear83
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:22pm

      @LPHP- With all due respect, I do have an idea of what I’m talking about. I once was part of the rainbow crowd. Just as I chose to live that lifestyle I chose to un-live it too. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both choices, it’s just easier for most to choose heterosexuality. We are all tempted and when left to our own devices we tend to choose what is not healthy for us both physically and spiritually.

      “People who are “born that way” and can only get sexual gratification with the harm of another cannot be trusted in polite society.”

      So it‘s not ok for pedophiles since they can’t help who they are but it’s perfectly fine for gays and polygamists simply because they have relationships with adults… does that make sense to you? I’d hope not. Are you not discriminating against someone who can’t help who they are? Is it ok for necrophiliacs to do what they do since they are “born that way?“ So see when you use the ”born that way” argument you open up a whole flood gate of people with certain sexual desires that they can‘t help thus who are we as a society to say it’s wrong?

      Report Post » scarebear83  
    • Sines314
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:30pm

      When straights try to have sex in the way that feels natural to them, it makes the other person happy.

      When gays try to have sex in the way that feels natural to them, it makes the other person happy.

      When pedophiles try to have sex in the way that feels natural to them, it hurts the other person.

      See the pattern? The only one who might be claimed to be harmed in anyway is God. Just remember, God is perfect. If God is perfect, then he cannot be harmed in any way, certainly not by us humans. Therefore, when two gay people have sex, two people are happy, and nobody is hurt. Just like when straight people have sex. Sure there is no possibility for reproduction, but that’s not immoral or causing harm, unless it’s immoral or causing harm to engage in any kind of birth control.

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:15pm

      @ScareBear 83:
      Did you even read my reply?

      No. I was not saying that pedophilia is not OK because they can’t help it. I was saying that pedophilia is not OK because it causes HARM. I made the point so forcefully that the word HARM was in all-caps. I have a hard time rereading my reply and comprehending how you could have misconstrued those words outside of a willful misconstrual.

      I don’t care if you can help it or not, if your actions cause harm to innocent people, you need to be locked away from all potential innocent victims. If you’ve committed a crime, whether as a result of those compulsions or not, that place for you to be locked away is prison. If you’ve merely made yourself known to authorities as a predator, LIKELY to cause harm due to your compulsions, then that place for you to be locked away is a mental hospital.

      Regardless, and to recap, I don’t care whether or not you can help yourself, if you’re causing harm, you get locked away because of that harm, not because you can’t help yourself.

      I even go so far as to extend this to alcoholics who chronicly drink and drive. They’re compelled to consume alcohol, and as a result, they exercise poor decision-making, which leads them inevitably to get behind the wheel and drive. That is an action which has a manifest potential for harm of such magnitude, that after a small number of repeat offenses, lock them up and throw away the key. It would be the only way to keep them from killing someone.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • scarebear83
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:47pm

      What if it were a 26 yr old and a 13 yr old? What if the 13 yr old was happy in the relationship?

      We’re getting off track though. The argument is “because one is born that way” means they can’t help it and it should be allowed in civil society primarily because of that argument. But it is not ok when it comes to pedophiles even though they too are “born that way.” See the slippery slope that argument creates? Tell you what, I‘ll give you one that doesn’t harm people… how about those who have a preference for objects? Should they be allowed to marry their telephone because they can‘t help that they’ve fallen in love with this object? The point is you can claim gay people are “born that way” until the cows come home but you would have to be willing to concede that others with all types of sexual preferences should have the ability to do as they wish because it is “genetics.”

      I understood your argument perfectly. Your argument is that it‘s perfectly fine for adults to be in those types of relationships because they can’t help it. But being a pedophile is wrong. My argument was, in a roundabout sense, that if all sexuality is a result of having been born that way then who are we as a society to tell someone they can’t be who they were “born to be” even if it doesn’t conform to our societal standards?

      Report Post » scarebear83  
  • Jhn'1
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:12am

    I frequently attend Willow Creek, and it is about as non-doctrinal as it gets.
    Belief in God, check
    Belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, check
    everything else is negotiable
    Bill Hybels is a devout Democrat, and has never stood against any Democratic constituency.

    Report Post »  
    • well well
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:14am

      Wow! You’ve got that right. So, what was this article about?

      Report Post » well well  
    • daver18
      Posted on August 14, 2011 at 9:02am

      And your “church” has proven itself over and over and over again to teach a gospel that is not Christian. What Bill Hybels has done at Willow Creek is a perfect example of telling people what they want to hear so as not to offend. You just mentioned another proof by showing that Bill Hybels is not a Christian because you said he’s a Democrat. The Democrat Party platform is not compatible with the gospel of Jesus. There is no way that someone who accepts a pro-choice platform can be Christian. NOTHING trumps life. Period. Jesus would have never condoned the killing of innocent life but anyone who is a Democrat is doing just that. If you’re seeking the truth, then you need to seriously look at the true gospel, not the whitewashed messages taught at your church.

      Report Post »  
  • InCityNews
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:06am

    Jaycen
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:07am

    Speaking at a Leadership summit = ******* on your clientele?

    Can you explain that?

    Lesbian: I thought the gay community was into scat? For those of you who are not aware of this sexual perversion, it is the sexual act of being shat upon.

    Report Post »  
  • angelcat
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:11am

    If I drank coffeee, it certainly wouldn’t be at Starbucks any longer. Apparently they are too afraid of hurting the feelings of gays to participate in the conference. I would object with my dollars, few as they are.

    Report Post »  
    • MastrSSG
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:47am

      What’s funny here to me is that I was denied a job years ago at Starbucks after refusing to answer the question in a final interview, “would I have a problem if both my bosses above me were gay?

      My reply….Is that a standard question? Because its very discriminatory and I don’t think warrants an answer. If that indeed is a prerequisite for employment I think you will have to adjust your standard of questions after a few lawsuits. I would suggest eliminating the question and finding other ways to accomplish your goals.

      They’re reply to me….Well I guess this interview is finished., Good day Mr…….

      Report Post » MastrSSG  
    • Sines314
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:33pm

      “Would I have a problem if both of the bosses above me were black.”

      WHY THOSE RACIST BASTARDS! How dare they discriminate against my right to discriminate against black people!

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 12:06am

      Sines314, it’s a private business and you have no right to tell the private sector what to do.

      Funny how you leftists whine about legislating morality but have no problem with legislating your own morality.

      Report Post »  
  • independentvoteril
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:11am

    So now they suck as bad as their COFFEE.. which is overpriced.. and really sucks.. I go out of my way to avoid buying a cup of starbucks coffee..

    Report Post » independentvoteril  
  • Jaycen
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:05am

    I’m not a Christian, but I have to wonder which aspects of “conversion therapy” are dangerous, except to the ideology of Progressives.

    Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Sines314
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:35pm

      Oh, for example, telling the young gay children that they are sinners and God hates them for what they are? Forcing them to try to love people they can’t love? Denying them the right to love and have sex in a manner that both feels good to them and harms nobody?

      Conversion therapy starts off by telling you that you are an abomination before God. How can that NOT be damaging to a person?

      Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 12:05am

      Sines314 is just an anti-Christian bigot who wants to force the rest of us to think like him and accept people that leftists approve of.

      You leftists also have a messed up version of what love is.

      Report Post »  
  • S_Owen
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:00am

    I wonder, also: Is it “anti-gay” of me to say I am a proud heterosexual who is immensely attracted sexually to my wife who happens to be a female, (that’s how we heteros roll), and that it is natural for me to have sexual lust for my wife because, like I said, she’s a chick?

    Does this make me *gasp* anti-gay?

    Report Post » S_Owen  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:10am

      WE’RE HERE, WE’RE STRAIGHT, GET USED TO IT!

      WE’RE HERE, WE’RE STRAIGHT, GET USED TO IT!

      God, I’m so SICK of the Heterophobic bigots in our society. How long must we endure your persecution? Equal rights for heterosexuals, NOW!!!!

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:01am

      If you can’t understand the difference between being pro-A versus anti-B, then I can’t reasonably be expected to help you understand how speaking at an anti-B organization’s national meeting is, itself, anti-B.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Waterlyly
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 11:35am

      LPHP, I thought we were striving for tolerance? It sounds to me like tolerance is a one-way street. As long as I, a heterosexual, am tolerant of your desired lifestyle I’m fine and you will accept me. But if my ideas differ, and I as a heterosexual female, do not want a lesbian hitting on me, than I am intolerant and fair game for hate-filled speech and even threats. (No you have not threatened me but I have been threatened when I refused the advances of lesbians).

      I will not force you to change your lifestyle choice. I personally do not agree with it. I am legally allowed my opinion, yet when I express it, I am shouted down as being intolerant. Therefore I state again, tolerance is apparently a one way street.

      Report Post » Waterlyly  
    • Sines314
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:40pm

      Should we be tolerant of intolerance? That’s kind of the one exception to the rule. We shouldn’t discriminate… except against people who discriminate. I don’t hate black people, but I do hate people who hate black people. I am intolerant of intolerance.

      Your average gay person has no problem with straight people. It’s not in any way anti-gay for a man to have sex with his wife. It’s not anti-straight for a woman to have sex with another woman. It’s anti-gay to say those woman are immoral, and should be discriminated against. It’d be anti-straight to say the same thing about the husband and wife.

      All most gays want is to just be treated like straight people. To quote a favorite sign of mine…

      The Gay Agenda
      1. Equality
      2. See #1

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:28pm

      @Waterlyly:
      If any straight person is being hit on by a gay person and rebuffs those advances with something civil like, “I’m straight, and your attention is not wanted.”, a sane gay person will say, “Oh. I’m sorry. Have a nice appropriate period of the day.” An insane gay person will be insulted by civility. I recommend avoiding all manner of insane people.

      If a straight person is being hit on by a gay person and rebuffs those advances with something uncivil, like “Get away from me, fa&&ot and/or dyk3!” all bets are off as to what the proper reaction from the gay person may be.

      The consequences for any such interaction lays firmly on the head of the first person who gets uncivil.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 12:07am

      Sines314 just showed that the gay agenda is about forcing people to accept their lifestyle. Why should I be forced to accept others? Why can‘t I pick and choose for myself whom I want and don’t want to accept? This is a free country.

      Report Post »  
  • S_Owen
    Posted on August 11, 2011 at 11:57pm

    Hmmm. Thus far, after the above 2 comments, (LPHP and Charles116), I have determined that apparently homosexuals have a thing for coffee that needs to be defended and guarded, and used as an extortion tactic.

    Interesting.

    Report Post » S_Owen  
  • fltwoway
    Posted on August 11, 2011 at 11:56pm

    When an organization declines an opportunity to define leadership because a small minority starts a petition is petty. Starbuck claims inclusion but practices exclusion for the fear of offending a minor part of their business is a least hypocritical and at best politically correct. I vote with my wallet, goodbye Starbucks. I will miss you.

    Report Post » fltwoway  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:08am

      Exactly!

      Their “inclusiveness” certainly seems to exclude a large number of people. I wonder how Christian clients feel about being crapped on by this CEO. LesbianPackingHollowpoints, care to speak to that?

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:41am

      Declining to endorse is not exclusion.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
    Posted on August 11, 2011 at 11:41pm

    Business owners are business owners to make money. ******* on a sizeable segment of their clientele, which Starbucks has a sizeable gay clientele, is not smart.

    Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:07am

      Speaking at a Leadership summit = ******* on your clientele?

      Can you explain that?

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:21am

      Speaking at an anti-gay organization’s national meeting = ******* on your gay clientele.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • S_Owen
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:02am

      Oh, Lesbian Packing Hollow,

      If not for heterosexuality, you wouldn’t even be here to choose homosexuality.

      The irony, the irony…

      Report Post » S_Owen  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:18am

      The only choice I had was whether to stop denying who and what I was and start living my life as myself and not a hetero-normative fiction of myself… or eat one of my hollow points. That was the only choice involved here.

      Wanna make a quip about gay suicides? Hmm? Wanna make a joke about that, funny man?

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • S_Owen
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:52am

      @Lesbian,

      You’re kidding, right? Even when talking about suicide, you need to attach your homosexuality to it. As if “gay suicides” are more sober and awful than “hetero suicides”. Give me a break.

      As to making jokes, it is a well-established fact that even in Hollywood, the homosexuals are used for comic relief and for the amusement of the masses, complete with male effeminate stereotypes or female mannish cliches. Congrats. You are the punchline.

      I am bored of schooling you. Your “gayness” is nothing more to you than a card to throw down when offended or challenged. That might work with the liberals, but it ain’t working with me. Buh-bye.

      Report Post » S_Owen  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:42am

      Where does it say on their website that they’re anti-gay?

      Report Post »  
    • DYNA
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 5:21am

      God does not expect us to save ourselves, otherwise Jesus would not have done what He did on the cross. He was also raised for our justification so that we could be raised up with Him. His plans for us are for good, not for evil. God wants us to believe in, and call on the Name of Jesus. Even if my words are inadequate, His Holy Spirit is more than adequate to make aware and make alive your spirit and lead you to a church that has the Life of God in it.

      My Holy Spirit filled Church is filled with people who realized they could not save themselves from what was harming them, whether it be fear, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, severe depression, disease, life threatening illness, homosexuality, food, pornography, poverty, adultery, idolatry, or what ever. It surprised me to see that as many as one out of twelve people raise their hands when asked if they had, in their past, ever had thoughts/heard voices to commit suicide, things that we have been delivered from.

      Report Post »  
  • charles116
    Posted on August 11, 2011 at 11:27pm

    It certainly would have been a mistake to speak there.
    I can only assume he did not know the Churches homophobic history.
    Half of Starbucks staff in major cities are gay.

    Report Post » charles116  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 12:06am

      Homophobic? So…you think some Christians have an irrational fear of homosexuals?

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Nora
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:46pm

      Another good reason not to buy coffee there. Try Dunkin Donuts.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love