Dave Blount #fundie

Dave Blount #fundie moonbattery.com

[Starbucks takes a position in favor of same-sex marriage.]

According to Kalen Holmes, executive vice president for Partner Resources, destroying the concept of marriage, encouraging lethal disease-spreading sexual deviance, and pandering to militant perverts are “core to who we are and what we value as a company.”

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality reminds us that despite the best efforts of the moonbats running Starbucks, we are not yet living in Sodom or Gomorrah:

“It’s just very sad because corporations, including Starbucks, they seem so much more solicitous of 1 to 3 percent of the population than the many, many millions of pro-family, mainly Christian consumers who oppose the redefinition of marriage.”

Yet again, the silent majority is spat on. But we do have a voice if we speak with our wallets. As LaBarbera notes,

“It’s so easy, you just get your expensive cup of coffee somewhere else.”

Get it somewhere else and it probably won’t be as expensive.

49 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"According to Kalen Holmes, executive vice president for Partner Resources, destroying the concept of marriage, encouraging lethal disease-spreading sexual deviance, and pandering to militant perverts are 'core to who we are and what we value as a company.'"

I think you'll find that those in the Bible Belt are most likely to be divorced and the most likely reason is infidelity. You'll also find that "sexual deviance" is also more likely to occur in heterosexuals simply because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Finally, "pandering to militant perverts" is exactly what the porn industry exists for and, by far, porn is targeted at heterosexual males.

You should probably shut up now about how terrible gay people are and how they want to do all of the things that "good Christians" have been doing for a very long time themselves.

"Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality reminds us that despite the best efforts of the moonbats running Starbucks, we are not yet living in Sodom or Gomorrah:"

I've often found that those who put "Truth" in their organization name are those most likely to spread lies and propaganda. It's sort of like a used car salesman putting a "Best Deal" sign on the worst lemon on the lot: it only fools the most gullible of people.

"Yet again, the silent majority is spat on."

Silent majority? Christians?

You're joking, right?

"But we do have a voice if we speak with our wallets."

Yeah. Sure. How'd that Budweiser boycott go a few years back when they advertised in gay magazines? Have they been put out of business yet?

old comment by Xotan

"According to Kalen Holmes, executive vice president for Partner Resources, destroying the concept of marriage, encouraging lethal disease-spreading sexual deviance, and pandering to militant perverts are “core to who we are and what we value as a company.” "

- How about this for lying misrepresentation! I wonder is this actionable at law?

"“It’s just very sad because corporations, including Starbucks, they seem so much more solicitous of 1 to 3 percent of the population than the many, many millions of pro-family, mainly Christian consumers who oppose the redefinition of marriage.” "

- Is La Barbera hinting that moonbat staff are trying to sabotage their employer?

"Yet again, the silent majority is spat on. But we do have a voice if we speak with our wallets. As LaBarbera notes,

“It’s so easy, you just get your expensive cup of coffee somewhere else.”

Get it somewhere else and it probably won’t be as expensive."

Encouraging a boycott? Is that legal? Can Blount be sued for loss of profit?

That would be nice!

old comment by Burning Stake

Guess what, Mr. Blount? Many of those so-called, "millions of pro-family, mainly Christian consumers who opposed the redefinition of marriage" actually don't give a sh*t about the "redefinition of marriage," because most of the "silent majority" (at the very least, those under 30 in this group) see homosexuals as human beings, especially with Seattle and Washington state having some of the highest levels of "unchurched" people in the country.

I'm one of them. I've also recently discovered that I'm demisexual, and may well one day want to marry a woman "despite" being a woman myself. You'd probably say I'm being a hypocrite and sinner, but I actually see you as being liable of "redefining" yourself. Being "pro-family" doesn't mean that only Christian men and women, with the perfect 2.5 children family are legally married. Or, you know, have family members that care about them.

Frankly, I'm happy that this law is passing, especially as the American Constitution has more words about slavery (many) than homosexuality (0). And slavery's already been abolished.

old comment by JSS

{According to Kalen Holmes, executive vice president for Partner Resources, destroying the concept of marriage, encouraging lethal disease-spreading sexual deviance, and pandering to militant perverts are “core to who we are and what we value as a company.”}

Really? Doesn't sound like it to me. I thought they just made coffee. Oh, and used some of the proceeds to benefit causes that prevent gays from being treated like crap, which, apparantly angers a pleasant group of angry, vitriolic, frothing-at-the-mouth people who insist that they're victims.

{Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality}

Well, that alone is enough to refute credibility, but I digress...

{“It’s just very sad because corporations, including Starbucks, they seem so much more solicitous of 1 to 3 percent of the population than the many, many millions of pro-family, mainly Christian consumers who oppose the redefinition of marriage.”}

By the way, if Peter wanted to inflate his side he should have used a few more 'many's. I don't know, just two doesn't convince me. Oh, and that 1 to 3% seems too high. I thought they didn't want people to think that gays make up, *gasp*, a segment of the population that would be visible on a pie chart!

Figures these people would be focused on population sizes rather than the rights of said.

{Yet again, the silent majority is spat on. But we do have a voice if we speak with our wallets. As LaBarbera notes}

Boo hoo, bring on the weeping violins. You think obnoxious bible protests and quotes from your kind count as silent? You guys are about the loudest.

{Get it somewhere else and it probably won’t be as expensive.}

Because this rant was all about what coffee shops charge for a cup o' joe.

old comment by tmarcl

Yet again, the silent majority is spat on

You're not in the majority, Dave. And even if you were, it wouldn't matter. This country's constitution was set up the way it was to prevent the persecution of minorities by the majority. That's why we have the First Amendment - so people who say or believe unpopular things are still free to say and believe them. That's why we have had amendments expanding who is allowed to vote in this country (non-whites, non-landholders, non-males, and 18 year olds). The idea that discriminating against the minority is wrong is basic to our founding as a country. Yeah, it's taken awhile for us to wake up to that fact - it took a bloody civil war to finally free slaves, and include them as citizens, several more decades for women. Not to mention the Civil Rights movement that fought to end segregation.

What's funny, though, Dave, is that with every single victory that's been secured for minorities, people like you have fought it tooth and nail and still lost! You'll lose this time too, Dave. You might as well just accept it.