Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire CEO Shultz of Starbucks told shareholder at recent stockholders

Scott,
You have made a very profound observation.
I don't really like gays, but if they don't flaunt it or try to push it on me, I could really care less. That is their issue with the man upstairs.
We have much more important issues that effect us directly than to worry what someone does (hopefully) in private.

Myron

Maybe cause I'm not a big coffee drinker, but I really don't think I've ever been in one. I always figured it wasn't the kind of place for me. Of course, in over 40 years I've never had any coffee other than black. Ever. So I guess a gourmet coffee place just doesn't appeal to me.

Well if it does, picture the "freedom" of two cornholers doing what they wish in the celebration of freedom.

The guy selling coffee wants you to have that image, not me...

Don't let their name or reputation fool ya as the only coffee I have ever drank that was more "full bodied" than Starbucks was in the old hunting camp. Once in a while I even dump a little cream in it.

Black works there too. It is how I drink most of my coffee too.

I am not saying you should go there, I am just saying it is an OK place to go. And, I support what they stand for, real freedom.

I agree with you to a point. I'm not going to try and change your mind, but use what you've laid out to elaborate a bit on my beliefs.

As a Christian, I am a sinner. By definition I am a wretched man in need of divine intervention on my behalf. I believe that even my smallest sin is enough to result in me ending up in hell. My "best" sin is no better than someone else's "worst" sin. Me being a teller of little white lies is the same as someone else murdering another. Both are sins and we have both fallen short of the glory of God. Christ said that even looking at a woman lustfully is committing adultery. Why should I consider my sexual sin less of an issue than a homosexual's sexual sin? I can't.

There are plenty of murderers and homosexuals in heaven. There are plenty of saints and preachers in hell.

A Christian (individual or church) should never do anything extrabiblical to prevent a homosexual from entering a church to hear the word of the Lord. Obviously you can't force them to enter, but you shouldn't use the words of the Lord out of context to promote hate and bigotry. But...Christians should never compromise on the Truth contained in the Holy Bible. Jesus Christ is universal. He didn't just die for the straight people's sins. The bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin. A church can't embrace one sin to appease one group, while speaking out against others.

A person's sexuality is such a personal, powerful thing. It can bring a life, or cause one to lose their lives. Wow, it really is a powerful function of the human existence. I thank God every day that my sins aren't of the homosexual nature. That isn't meant to sound high and mighty or holier than thou...it really is a prayer of thanks and humility. I can't imagine my sexuality being defined in a manner that is counter to my faith. There are Christians who's sexuality is counter to their faith and it's a hugely devastating issue they have to face.

Where you and I differ is that I will only support homosexual marriage if the Christian marriage is protected both in speech and in application. Specifically, you can't legalize homosexual marriage and make churches perform them or recognize them, nor can you punish churches or faith based organizations for opposing it.

All laws tell people how to live their lives. You didn't know that?

I cannot support, where I have a choice, a company that openly supports and funds the gay agenda. It is not innocent. Have you seen the programs and indoctrination that are being implemented in schools and organizations that involve children? They are promoting a loss of innocence and an "intrinsically evil" lifestyle to the innocent that we are responsible for.

Compassion for? certainly

Any sort of Condoning? nope

You and I are on the same page. I have no problem at all with what you wrote. The church cannot be forced to preform same sex marriages. That one I will fight.

The law passed by Washington voters does not require churches to preform same sex marriages.

I do not support any form of forced indoctrination. I do not support same sex marriage, I just do not fight it. I do not support homosexuals, I hate the idea of it, but I do not discriminate against them either.

You don't see the difference between your belief and the CEO's? You are saying live and let live. He is telling those who don't like his way to get out. This is normal. Just standard operating procedure for militants.

Marriage is an institution. You are opening a whole big can-o-worms by letting that instution include men&men and women&women.

You have to realize that many consider homosexuality to be a perversion. The Bible sure does. That it's a mental illness, brought on by people wholely rejecting God and the instution He put up. You want homosexuals teaching your kids sunday school? You want them as their boyscout leaders? You want them adopting? You want them indoctrinating YOUR kids, and grandkids? They are immoral, perverse people. Sure all have sinned, but not all have rejected God in such a way that they were "handed over" to their evil desires. They flaunt their sin in the face of God.

Now, is it a "discrimination" issue? Civil rights issue? Nooooope. They want you to think it is... They ain't no Rosa Parks.

It won't be long until we get to the point where Christians will be considered a Hate Group because they don't accept homosexuals. We are inching towards that point, as all part of their master plan.

So accept the perversion of the institution of marriage all you want.. They'll come for you, label you a biggot, and toss your ass in jail before long when America gets so "gay" that a Christain won't even be able to be a Christian. Mark my words.

Separation of Church and State... seems pretty [bleep] simple.

Just because your State recognizes the simple financial contract between two people as "Marriage", doesn't mean your Church has to. And just because your Church doesn't, doesn't mean your State shouldn't.

Kinda the same as a Jew can legally marry a Catholic in all 50 States, but the marriage is null in either Church.

Amen. 100% agree with you.

marriage isnt just an institution its also a legal description.....you can be married in the eyes of god and you can be married by law but not in the eyes of god....as far as the courts and for legal implications were concerned i was married to my wife 2 years before we exchanged our vows before god.....

the christian definition of marriage isnt the only definition within our society even leaving out homosexual marriage or any other perverse definition....there is just a pure legal definition aswell that doesnt have a thing to do with god....

So you are a Christian and you think being homosexual is a pretty OK thing to do?

Do you still think that knowing that homosexuality is an abomination to God Almighty?



Do you think God Almighty was just playing when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? I think it was a teaching point..

They are. They supported gun owners in Kommiefornia when the grabbers tried to stop them from open carying.

Starbucks supports freedom for all. We should too.

Having written here before about issues associated with homosexual behavior, those who so engage and the many experiences and realizations gained while working and associating with homosexuals - am not going to repeat all of that stuff. But, on the marriage issue, it seems that something might be gained by looking at the matter in light of what I think is current reality.

Our society recognizes two kinds of marriages (maybe more, but at least two). One is the civil action and legal contract that two people undertake (even simply a no-process "common-law" marriage in some states) that is recognized for basic purposes in our society and legal system. It is open to all who meet the qualifications, and almost immediate if you wish - get the license and get it done - by anyone legally qualified to certify it.

A second kind of marriage, and I tend to call it a "Christian Marriage", is a covenant shared with God and one's mate. It involves and embraces commitments and values - moral, ethical and otherwise - that, by their very nature, reach far beyond the simple requirements of a "civil marriage". This Christian covenant binds two people in ways not considered in a civil marriage and, given the thought and searching that should be involved, normally is not a "quickie". For legal reasons, the Christian marriage almost always has the civil aspect as a component. (NOTE: By calling it "Christian", I AM NOT at all pretending that other non-Christian religious entities do not also encorage and sanction similar marriages.)

If one chooses to differentiate in this fashion, it would seem that the vast majority of same-sex folks clamoring for "the right to marry" are looking for a civil marriage. They seem to want the "rights and benefits" (mostly financially related) that come with such marriages. It is one thing for those people to want that, and for us to debate the sensibility of allowing it.

However, their desire for a Christian marriage would be another matter. Given my beliefs and understandings about God's words in this regard, there is no reason to debate whether or not two people of the same sex should have a Christian marriage. They should not, and no church, or minister, or deacon, or bishop, or whatever functionary in that church should perform such a ceremony. How can two people make a covenant with God on a matter where they are doing something that God says is sinful?.

I realize that some church groups do perform such marriages even though Biblical evidence says that they do not meet God's requirements. If they do, that is not likely the only un-Godly thing they are doing. Actually, it is tempting to question whether or not a lot of those now actually are Christian churches. But, if a same-sex couple wants such a marriage, they have a venue that should be satisfactory to their want.

In my case, I don't care if a person gets a license and marries a wooly worm as long as they don't expect government consideration and benefits due to the marriage - and as long as they don't step or sit on the worm.

Consequently, I think it would be best if all of our governmental jurisdictions (bottom to top) would abandon ALL benefits that accrue due to marriage - social benefits, insurance benefits, tax deductions, whatever - no one gets anything from any government entity (including employees) because they are married - nothing for the spouse. Pay a salary decent enough for an employee to support a family and forget the "benefits" - many of which are grossly unfair to taxpayers anyway. Thus, remove one of the big issues in this current debate. If the same-sex-marriage folks are chasing "equality" - fine - let it be social and remove all of the factors that could drive an economic argument.

Along with the above, the government has to stay out of the private sector when it comes to who gets benefits, and why, and how. Those who actually create jobs and enable earnings should be able to figure out how to make that work sensibly.

One can dream - right?

Post of the week, and its only Monday.

I personally think that coffee SUCKS!