Re: Response To Starbucks “Social Issues,” Marcea H.

Greetings Albert!

Let me start off by thanking you for your patience while waiting for a response.

Starbucks prefers not to engage in debate on political, religious, or social issues. As a global company, Starbucks refrains from supporting or endorsing political parties. Our focus is making our stores welcoming to everyone and providing our customers with the highest quality coffee.

Thanks again for writing us. If you ever have any questions or concerns in the future, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

We would love to hear your feedback. Click here to take a short survey.

Sincerely,

Marcea H
customer service

If as stated above, “As a global company, Starbucks prefers not to engage in debate on political, religious, or social issues,” why does Starbucks openly and blatantly go front and center in favor of the gay marriage issue as a matter of “fairness”?

As educated people at Starbucks should know, words mean something, and marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, while gay marriage is something else, two of a kind, completely different than traditional marriage. Following the thinking at Starbucks, one must conclude that every other kind of marriage is the next step; multiple partners, marriage to children, incest, bestiality, and who knows what. There is no end.

Then there is the health issue and the fact that physical homosexuality is largely responsible for the AIDS epidemic that is still growing exponentially. Add to that the selfishness and outright meanness of infected gays who show their anger at having the infliction that they try to infect others directly or with blood donations to contaminate many innocent people.

I’m sorry, but Starbucks has no compelling reason to support something that has no redeeming social value. And for Starbucks to claim not to engage in debate on social issues, why did they open this can of worms? If a social issue is so divisive and controversial as is gay marriage, the obligation of Starbucks’ corporate leaders to their diverse stockholders should be “No comment” or “To each his own,” or some other such detachment from the issue.

Starbucks cannot claim not to debate social issues that they wholeheartedly thrust themselves into, and when questioned, hide behind a false premise of “no debate on social issues.”