Starbucks has a history of placing liberal, pro-homosexual and anti-God statements submitted by customers, celebrities and other public figures on the side of its coffee cups for customers to contemplate while they wash down a muffin with a Frappe-Mocha-whatever.
Java giant Starbucks finds itself entangled in yet another brewing controversy over its “The Way I See It” campaign. Starbucks has a history of placing liberal, pro-homosexual and anti-God statements submitted by customers, celebrities and other public figures on the side of its coffee cups for customers to contemplate while they wash down a muffin with a Frappe-Mocha-whatever.
Although the company has every right to do what it wants with its cups, one questions whether it makes good business sense to intentionally alienate a large percentage of the coffee drinking public with these inflammatory political musings. Many customers with traditional values find it quite offensive. Although the company has used some religion oriented statements in the past – such as one by Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren – the preponderance of politically and spiritually themed quotes that make the “cup cut” seem to represent a hard-left ideology.
I know… it’s difficult to believe that a company headquartered in Seattle, Washington, would labor under such a leftist bent, but sadly, such is the case. Again, that’s the company’s prerogative. But come on guys. How about some open mindedness – a little balance?
Concerned Women for America (CWA) pulled the lid off Starbucks leftist corporate ideology a couple of years ago and stirred up controversy by pointing out that Starbucks had sponsored multiple “gay pride” events and had given monetary support to ultra-liberal abortion provider Planned Parenthood. For a while, the company seemed to back off a bit with the liberal activism, but they now appear to be warming things up again.
Here are just a few of the “The Way I See It” statements in controversy:
The Way I See It # 347 – “Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure.” – Bill Schell, Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, Canada
The Way I See It # 230 – “Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can’t wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but Heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than Hell” – Joel Stein, columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
The Way I See It # 43 – “My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don’t make that mistake yourself. Life’s too d*mn short.” – Armistead Maupin, Homosexual Novelist
So, in the interest of equal time, I’ve submitted the following “The Way I See It” quote from a Christian conservative perspective for Starbucks to consider. Other conservatives should also be encouraged to visit Starbucks’ website to submit their own statements:
The Way I See It # ?? – “Why do so many in our fallen world revile God’s natural order when it comes to marriage, family and human sexuality? Why do we encourage wicked pride in a morally bankrupt, high-risk lifestyle that’s anything but “gay”? Why do we shake our fist with hate at perfect Love? Life is short – but it’s never too late for change.” – Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues, Concerned Women for America
jmattbarber@comcast.net
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
Read more articles by J. Matt Barber
The Way I See It #___- "Why is it that a company that serves coffee finds necessity to print messages pandering to fringe groups, filled with overtly politically biased overtones on their paper cups as if their customers are unable to think independently and need to be ideologically spoon-fed by trite, pseudo-philosophical ramblings delivered via an over-priced coffee receptacle passed across the counter by an employee who has yet to graduate high school?" - Patrick Mulligan, university business student, non-coffee drinker, disgusted with politically correct pandering on the part of large corporations in an effort to maintain the "hipness" that made them desirable to hippy campus activists 40 years ago.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 22, 2007
It always feels good to find one's own thoughts put so well by another. Having a few local roasteries here makes boycotting the Starbucks kiosk an easy thing to do. There are little coffee stands all over town, although I prefer the Krazy Moose and its leader, "Good Morning, Alaska" to Brand "S's" flagship roast, anyway.
Comment by Liz | May 22, 2007
You really shouldn’t torment the poor things.
Starbucks is free to cater to whomever they wish. Not only is this their prerogative, but it provides an outlet for personalized liberal venting the left lacks. It is doubtful any reasonable people hang out there anyway or would become infected with liberalism if we did (for many, liberalism is something they did in their youth and outgrew). Regular folks pick up their coffee at Dunkin Donuts, discount bookstores, and I-Hop, and increasingly leave Starbucks to the elitists they’ve always adored. Since Starbucks started the trend, several copy-cats have followed suit offering gourmet beverages, eats & sweets, campus politics, and a café ambiance. Even 7-Eleven now offers gourmet coffee where it used to offer drinkable-caffeine.
One of the biggest problems with the left is they are too straight-jacketed due to socialism’s preoccupation with controlling the way people think. Public-radio and most of the media consists of carefully vetted messaging without any form of feedback. Talk-radio, thus far, is dominated by conservatives, libertarians and other outside-the-box thinkers willing to engage in two-way conversations that, frankly, leave the Left at a loss. Even their blogs don’t get the same traction (despite being more numerous) simply because the discourse allowed is too restrictive (you will find plenty of rant, but little disagreement, argument, variety, source-checking or reason). The left needs an outlet that allows them some degree of non-prepackaged thinking and Starbuck’s instant messaging may be all they’ve got.
We engage them in exchanges of ideas as opportunity presents, but are generally met with preconceptions and mistrust that makes honest debate nigh impossible. They are welcome here to a degree unreciprocated at their own venues. Yes, we bait them and challenge their quaint notions and sometimes belittle, but it is a far cry from the nastiness that greets a conservative intruding on their places of worship. Occasionally, lifelong liberals stumble over flaws in their ideology and begin questioning the mess created; until some purblind radical takes notice, blows the whistle, and throws them out of the club. Before they know what’s happened to them, they been re-labeled “conservative” by former comrades and relegated to the society of knuckle-scraping Neanderthals (i.e., the rest of us). They can return to the fold, but only on pain of severe chastisement and a pledge of pure faith. The other alternative is telling the Left to take a hike. There is simply no room remaining in liberalism for mavericks; and that is to be pitied. To be a liberal, you must give up your right to think, talk, and act in illiberal ways. More than a few us (who now deem themselves conservative) were once proud, conform-to-the-Zeitgeist, liberals.
Therefore, if some liberals are finding ways to express themselves outside proscribed channels (even if it is mainly squirrelly rant) among their own kind, we ought to encourage this in the hopes some few will breakout of their mental prison; and do nothing that will scuttle that. Let them vent unhindered. It has more potential to do some good than it has of making them worse than they already are. It may be fun to ‘push their buttons’, but only serves to confirm in them an opinion of us that is unwarranted; and turns them off to the idea of breaking ranks.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | May 23, 2007