Don't drink the Starbucks: supporters of homosexuality

[otm]

fix:

The last Pope called the homosexual agenda a new ideology of evil. I missed what he said about health insurance co pays for workers of large corps in the USA.

Francis Cardinal George made a public comment several years ago about the fact that he was sick and tired of the nitpicking that was going on in the general area of rubrics.

In the comment he took shots at both the liberals and the conservatives; of the liberals he said that (and I paraphrase) they were knowledgeable about the social Gospel, but ignored the moral dimensions of the Gospel, in particualr sexual morality.

Of the conservatives, he said that they were strong about the moral Gospel and life issues, and all but ignored the teachings of the social Gospel.

Perhaps if you were to review the social encyclicals of the last century, and the comments and writings by both John Paul 2, and Benedict 16th about economics, and in particualr capitalism, you would be able to understand the basis for issues such as health insurance; co-pays or otherwise.

Or you could do as others have, and dismiss them as nothing more than warmed over Marxism.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people who are as vocal as they are over morality, and in particualr, sexual morality, and how thoroughly they understand the Church’s teachings in this area, can be so abysmally ignorant of the Church’s social teachings.

But then, I truly should not be amazed, as it seems those who are most knowledgeable about the Church’s social teachings seem to exhibit the sexual morality of a wild libertine.

Would that both sides could understand what Christ teaches in toto.

 

[otm]

carol marie:

It looks like we have 2 different Starbucks threads going… this is my post from the other thread:

This is what I emailed to Starbucks:

The way I see it Jesus was the promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” I believe that any religion that does not recognize Jesus Christ as the Savior, regardless of the sincerity of the followers, is a false religion. While only God can judge the souls of men, it is my prayer that all will come to know Him through His Son Jesus Christ in order to have the hope of eternal life in Heaven.

There has been much discussion on a Catholic Forum (www.catholic.com) that I frequent regarding the “Way I See It” written by a homosexual. Some members of the forum were calling for a boycott of Starbucks because they felt that you were encouraging a sinful and dangerous lifestyle. Other members pointed out that the opinions from the “Way I see It” writers do not necessarily refect the views of Starbucks. Assuming that’s true, we wondered if you would be willing to print MY views on your cups - a view that, given our current society, is politically incorrect, yet shared by millions of Christians worldwide.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well said. Congratulations for making an effective witness. Let us know if you receive a response.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

fix:

Let us be accurate. My post was referring to the claim we will not be desensitized by gay agit prop from places like Starbucks. The poster was claiming it is a logical fallacy and I pointed out it was not.

As far as you were concerned, I was referring to your comment that you smelled a loss of common sense and logical conclusions when someone suggested that the slippery slope fallacy was in the vicinity. I meant that speaking directly to why the criticism was not applicable didn’t require a commentary on the poster’s common sense or logic. You only needed to point out that his criticism didn’t apply, and why.

For instance, you might have just said that accepting the quotes was, to your way of thinking, inappropriate in and of itself, without dragging in worries about what acceptance might lead to. You might have said that the Church is pretty clear about avoiding what might be a near occasions of sin for yourself or others. If you think that accepting that quote might be construed as being accepting of that sin, which might lead another to commit it more readily, then the slippery slope has nothing to do with it.

fix:

The last Pope called the homosexual agenda a new ideology of evil. I missed what he said about health insurance co pays for workers of large corps in the USA.

The welfare of the poor, the oppressed, and workers in general within the capitalistic system has been the concern of every Pope for the last hundred years. That Starbucks is willing to cut into their profits and competitiveness to do what is right makes a difference to me. It does not make them perfect, but it makes a difference.

Check out the many encyclicals written on this complex subject at osjspm.org/cst/doclist.htm. One of many quotes is:

"Beginning our discussion of the rights of the human person, we see that everyone has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services.

Pacem in Terris, 1963"

Again:
I do not think that refusing to patronize Starbucks on account of conscience makes one a bigot or a Pharisee. You weigh the good vs. the bad, and you make your witness. You may see better than I do. I have no wish to be a stumbling block to you.

 

[fix]

otm:

One can defend the moral order without resorting to legalism. Interestingly, the Pharisees were pointed out not for false legalism, but legalism.

Likewise, there is a tendency today to resort to a very legalistic approach to morality, sort of a “return to the good ol’ days” of not so long ago; or at least, not so long ago for some who were raised pre Vatican 2.

When it is pointed out that the approach is rather legalistic, the quick response is often that they are being accused of a false legalism, and they are just responding re: the moral order.

What they seem not to understand is that the moral order consists of something more than rules; not that it has no rules (as the liberals would posit), but that it is not well described by simply parroting the rules (as too many consevatives would have it).

Christ said to the people to do exactly what the pharisees tell you to do, but do not do as they do. The issue is hypocrisy. Following the moral law is not legalism, true or false legalism.

I am well aware that in certain circumstances, boycotting has had a significant effect on businesses. I do not suggest that it is illegitimate; however, as an effective means, it needs widespread support. I would suggest that not drinking Starbucks will have no measurable impact whatsoever if it is limited to those who might be ofended by the comments on the cup.

I have not endorsed a boycott. I said in another post one may boycott or not, my point is advertizing the quotes are wrong.

I would suggest that there is at least the possiblity of a parallel between not drinking Starbucks and the Pharisees’ refusal to be caught anywhere near, for example, a prostitute or adulterer; they were quite quick to state the moral rule and then distance themselves from the sinner.

I have no idea how you would draw such a conclusion. One would reject the coffee because the corporation is projecting an image that is wrong. We are called to be a sign of contradition.

And while we are discussing the topic of calling sinners to conversion, I would suspect that there just might be a reasonable possibility that some of the sinners Christ ate with and called to conversion may have well continuted to sin; and I would suspect that Christ would continue to eat with them - and to call them again to conversion. Were that not the case - in other words, were He to reject one caught in habitual sin, and not further eat with them - it woud say something for those today who suffer the effects of habitual sin; it would leave numbers (and I would suggest large numbers) in outright despair.

So, in your view it is good to financially support corps that abuse their postion under the pretense Christ ate with sinners? Huh?

However, a number of their business policies would be very in line with Magesterial documents and encyclicals.

I can’t say that. What I can say is that the quotes and the idea behind those quotes is counter to Christian thought and is an occasion of scandal.

 

[fix]

otm:

Catholic morality as it was taught prior to Vatican 2, and as it was understood by the great numbes of those taught was indeed not the exact opposite of legalism; it was in fact strongly tainted by a legalistic and minimalistic view of morality.

Liberal opinion or a fact you can support?

Sadly, some see the only option as a return to the legalistic approach of pre-Vatican 2.

You should speak with the Holy Spirit and tell him He got it all wrong until the 1960s. Revisionist history is no history.

 

[fix]

otm:

Francis Cardinal George made a public comment several years ago about the fact that he was sick and tired of the nitpicking that was going on in the general area of rubrics.

In the comment he took shots at both the liberals and the conservatives; of the liberals he said that (and I paraphrase) they were knowledgeable about the social Gospel, but ignored the moral dimensions of the Gospel, in particualr sexual morality.

Of the conservatives, he said that they were strong about the moral Gospel and life issues, and all but ignored the teachings of the social Gospel.

I know he is well liked by some, but some also think he is a bit weak. This is off topic.

Perhaps if you were to review the social encyclicals of the last century, and the comments and writings by both John Paul 2, and Benedict 16th about economics, and in particualr capitalism, you would be able to understand the basis for issues such as health insurance; co-pays or otherwise.

I have read some and continue to read more. None of it says anything about health insurance co pays trumping promoting the gay agenda. Much of it involves issues of prudence that are open to debate. This goes back to the last election where many tried to make financial issues equal to life issues.

Or you could do as others have, and dismiss them as nothing more than warmed over Marxism.

I accept all the teachings.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people who are as vocal as they are over morality, and in particualr, sexual morality, and how thoroughly they understand the Church’s teachings in this area, can be so abysmally ignorant of the Church’s social teachings.

I agree. The problem is many who claim to be familiar with the social encyclicals really just misinterpret them for their own radical agenda.

I agree with this:

Avoid the temptation of using the Church’s social doctrine as a weapon for judging “others” (entrepreneurs, politicians, multinational companies, etc.). We should instead concentrate first on our own lives and our personal, social, economic and political responsibilities.

— Know how to closely cooperate with lay people, forming them and sending them out as evangelizers of the world. They are the true experts in their fields of competence and have the specific vocation of transforming temporal realities according to the Gospel.WHAT THE CHURCH’S SOCIAL DOCTRINE IS BUILT ON

 

[fix]

BLB_Oregon:

As far as you were concerned, I was referring to your comment that you smelled a loss of common sense and logical conclusions when someone suggested that the slippery slope fallacy was in the vicinity. I meant that speaking directly to why the criticism was not applicable didn’t require a commentary on the poster’s common sense or logic. You only needed to point out that his criticism didn’t apply, and why.

For instance, you might have just said that accepting the quotes was, to your way of thinking, inappropriate in and of itself, without dragging in worries about what acceptance might lead to. You might have said that the Church is pretty clear about avoiding what might be a near occasions of sin for yourself or others. If you think that accepting that quote might be construed as being accepting of that sin, which might lead another to commit it more readily, then the slippery slope has nothing to do with it.

The welfare of the poor, the oppressed, and workers in general within the capitalistic system has been the concern of every Pope for the last hundred years. That Starbucks is willing to cut into their profits and competitiveness to do what is right makes a difference to me. It does not make them perfect, but it makes a difference.

Check out the many encyclicals written on this complex subject at osjspm.org/cst/doclist.htm. One of many quotes is:

"Beginning our discussion of the rights of the human person, we see that everyone has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services.

Pacem in Terris, 1963"

Again:
I do not think that refusing to patronize Starbucks on account of conscience makes one a bigot or a Pharisee. You weigh the good vs. the bad, and you make your witness. You may see better than I do. I have no wish to be a stumbling block to you.

Again, I am not saying one should or should not boycott this corp. The issue that the OP raised is valid. That the company may do some good for their employees is very nice, but no excuse to overlook their propaganda.

 

[wOoKiE]

It is threads like these that give anti-catholics all the ammunition they need.
This gung-ho, holier-than-thou attitude has to stop.
So starbucks quoted a homosexual writer on its cups. So what.
Homosexuals have just as much a right to write on cups as anyone else, including you. Your (pl) attitude towards gay people is what made this young man’s life a misery in the first place.

Sexual relations outside marriage are forbidden, granted. But loving another person is not, so there is no reason for you to judge a homosexual simply because he “could have been loving someone”. Who he sleeps with is a matter between him and God, no matter what your piously-shocked imaginations add to his words.

Consider the following:

“Oh no! Starbucks is in favour of homosexuals (as if we’re supposed to be killing them off or something) we must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! Smithco Ltd are testing their evil AIDS drugs on lab rats! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! America is spreading corrupt values and threatens our muslim brothers! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

Spot the difference.

Fundamentalism is for the stupid and the evil.

Let’s deal with the log in our collective eyes first, shall we?

 

[felra]

BLB_Oregon:

Does anyone think there is a parallel to this whole debate is St. Paul’s treatment of scruples concerning food? (1 Cor. 10:14-32 is one place he treats it.) In the end, his answer concerning what to eat and what to avoid seemed to have much less to do with the food than it did with the effect his actions would have on his own conscience and those in his immediate vicinity.

Comments?

I do see a parallel. St. Paul is coaching believers on how to meet the not yet believers on their own turf in order to not offend them and convert them to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, St. Paul does draw the line when what is offered by a non-believer for consumption to a believer is something “offered in sacrifice”, he instructs to reject this offering on grounds of conscience.

Hence, Starbucks’s active attempt to promulgate an immoral, pagan, anti-gospel lifestyle is all but in the reasoning of St. Paul to reject. St. Paul knows what limits to set for being in the world but not of the world in giving uncomprominsing, credible witness to the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10: 23-28 “Everything is lawful," but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up. No one should seek his own advantage, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything sold in the market, without raising questions on grounds of conscience, for “the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s.” If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you, without raising questions on grounds of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This was offered in sacrifice,” do not eat it on account of the one who called attention to it and on account of conscience;”

 

[felra]

wOoKiE:

It is threads like these that give anti-catholics all the ammunition they need.
This gung-ho, holier-than-thou attitude has to stop.
So starbucks quoted a homosexual writer on its cups. So what.
Homosexuals have just as much a right to write on cups as anyone else, including you. Your (pl) attitude towards gay people is what made this young man’s life a misery in the first place.

Sexual relations outside marriage are forbidden, granted. But loving another person is not, so there is no reason for you to judge a homosexual simply because he “could have been loving someone”. Who he sleeps with is a matter between him and God, no matter what your piously-shocked imaginations add to his words.

Consider the following:

“Oh no! Starbucks is in favour of homosexuals (as if we’re supposed to be killing them off or something) we must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! Smithco Ltd are testing their evil AIDS drugs on lab rats! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! America is spreading corrupt values and threatens our muslim brothers! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

Spot the difference.

Fundamentalism is for the stupid and the evil.

Let’s deal with the log in our collective eyes first, shall we?

So where do you make your stand for credible witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this fallen world? There will always be those who are offended with the light of the Gospel, those who will falsely cry “foul”, that for a Christian to stand on the truth is to be judgmental, holier than thou, … Time to put on the flack jacket and accept the unjust criticism, mockery, hatred by those whose agendas are anti-Christian, or those who are not used to someone actually matter-of-factly standing for what they believe and know is true. Persecution and martyrdom for Christian witness is part and parcel of what spreading the Gospel to those living in darkness is all about.

 

[fix]

wOoKiE:

It is threads like these that give anti-catholics all the ammunition they need.
This gung-ho, holier-than-thou attitude has to stop.
So starbucks quoted a homosexual writer on its cups. So what.
Homosexuals have just as much a right to write on cups as anyone else, including you. Your (pl) attitude towards gay people is what made this young man’s life a misery in the first place.

Sexual relations outside marriage are forbidden, granted. But loving another person is not, so there is no reason for you to judge a homosexual simply because he “could have been loving someone”. Who he sleeps with is a matter between him and God, no matter what your piously-shocked imaginations add to his words.

Consider the following:

“Oh no! Starbucks is in favour of homosexuals (as if we’re supposed to be killing them off or something) we must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! Smithco Ltd are testing their evil AIDS drugs on lab rats! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! America is spreading corrupt values and threatens our muslim brothers! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

Spot the difference.

Fundamentalism is for the stupid and the evil.

Let’s deal with the log in our collective eyes first, shall we?

This entire line of reasoning is why moral relativism is so common today. One who criticizes immoral behavior is called the sinner while authentic sin is minimized or denied.

 

[estesbob]

hearye:

I’m concerned about everyone’s reaction to homosexuality…

I’ll preface this by saying that I am NOT homosexual. However, I think there’s a common misconception out there that the Church is anti-homosexual.

Thanks all for listening.

I am always amused that everytime someone wants to lecture us on being intolerant to homosexuals the very FIRST thing they do is assure us that they are not themselves HOMOSEXUAL!

 

[Orionthehunter]

wOoKiE:

It is threads like these that give anti-catholics all the ammunition they need.
This gung-ho, holier-than-thou attitude has to stop.
So starbucks quoted a homosexual writer on its cups. So what.
Homosexuals have just as much a right to write on cups as anyone else, including you. Your (pl) attitude towards gay people is what made this young man’s life a misery in the first place.

Sexual relations outside marriage are forbidden, granted. But loving another person is not, so there is no reason for you to judge a homosexual simply because he “could have been loving someone”. Who he sleeps with is a matter between him and God, no matter what your piously-shocked imaginations add to his words.

Consider the following:

“Oh no! Starbucks is in favour of homosexuals (as if we’re supposed to be killing them off or something) we must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! Smithco Ltd are testing their evil AIDS drugs on lab rats! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

“Oh no! America is spreading corrupt values and threatens our muslim brothers! We must boycott them! :righteous anger:”

Spot the difference.

Fundamentalism is for the stupid and the evil.

Let’s deal with the log in our collective eyes first, shall we?

Wookie, you are quite right that companies have the right to promote certain political, moral, spiritual causes. And as potential customer, I have the right to say that this is an issue on which we have a fundamental disagreement and I will choose to express my disagreement by not purchasing their product.

Your characterization of anyone who chooses to exercise their legitimate right as “stupid and evil” is unfair and hypocritical. Why does Starbucks right to promote homosexual lifestyle deserve protection but the potential customer’s opposition does not?

Personally, although I’m offended that any company would use its coffee cups to promote a practice my faith teaches is harmful to souls, I had chosen to boycott Starbucks long before I had read this quote on teh cup as I disagree with prior political positions they have advocated that I consider extremist. For those who agree with Starbucks, they are free to purchase Starbucks excessively priced coffee as much as they want. I find it ironic that liberals have been boycotting companies for products, positions or practices with which they disagree for years but now that the tables are being turned on them, they cry foul.

 

[estesbob]

wOoKiE:

It is threads like these that give anti-catholics all the ammunition they need.
This gung-ho, holier-than-thou attitude has to stop.
So starbucks quoted a homosexual writer on its cups. So what.
Homosexuals have just as much a right to write on cups as anyone else, including you. Your (pl) attitude towards gay people is what made this young man’s life a misery in the first place.

Let me get this straight-he engages in sinful behavior and its my fault he was miserable?

As far as giving anti-Catholics ammuniton -why should I , when proclaiming the truth, be the least bit concerned about what others think? The Truth is Homosexual behavior is sinful- a Mortal sin at that. Starbucks chose to promote a mortal sin on their coffee cups(unless of course you agree with the quote in question that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior other than keeping it secret) I dont want to be party to promoting mortal sin so I choose not to drink their coffee. Why would you have a problem with that?

 

[Katie1723]

It looks like it’s time for tea and crumpets. Everyone seems a wee bit “out of sorts”
~ Kathy ~

 

[otm]

fix:

Liberal opinion or a fact you can support?

Obviously you have not followed the history of moral theology for the last 100 years.

It is no liberal opinion as it is the liberals who went off in another direction. It is the opinion of faithful, Magisterial following theologians, who are trying to get back to where we supposedly were headed when the train jumped the tracks. If you would read theologians in the area of moral theology, you would know this.

fix:

You should speak with the Holy Spirit and tell him He got it all wrong until the 1960s. Revisionist history is no history.

Did I use the words “all wrong”? That is your term.

Quit trying to make a fight and sit down and read what I actually said.

It would only be someone who has the naieve instructional level of an eighth grader who would take a position that the Church has never had to correct it’s direction. Notice, I did not say change it’s direction, I said correct. I know you have more than that level, but try to broaden your horizons a bit.

Trent, for example, occured because the Church had failed in the previous council to correct abuses, which subsequently led to the Reformation. Trent then had to react not to just the problems within the Church, but to a massive explosion that was triggered, in large part, by the unaddressed problems. Neither was that the fault of the Holy Spirit.

It is not basic doctrinal information that goes up the wrong alley, it is the implimentation. By using the manual, which was good for its purpose, as pretty much the sum and substance of moral theology in practice, the problems of legalism and minimalism started to creep in. Vatican 2 did not intend to throw out the manual, but to move beyond simply parsing sins to their finest degree and stopping there. Moral theology consists in more than simple “thous shalt nots”. It isn’t the Holy
Spirit that needed correcting, it was the rather simplistic view the Church had gotten itself in by not extending beyond the substance of the manual.

The problem we encountered subsequent to Vatican 2 was the wholesale tossing of any moral absolutes, which finds its foundation in Situational Ethics, the philosophical stew that was going on at the time in the secular world.

 

[otm]

felra:

I do see a parallel. St. Paul is coaching believers on how to meet the not yet believers on their own turf in order to not offend them and convert them to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, St. Paul does draw the line when what is offered by a non-believer for consumption to a believer is something “offered in sacrifice”, he instructs to reject this offering on grounds of conscience.

Hence, Starbucks’s active attempt to promulgate an immoral, pagan, anti-gospel lifestyle is all but in the reasoning of St. Paul to reject. St. Paul knows what limits to set for being in the world but not of the world in giving uncomprominsing, credible witness to the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10: 23-28 “Everything is lawful," but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up. No one should seek his own advantage, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything sold in the market, without raising questions on grounds of conscience, for “the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s.” If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is placed before you, without raising questions on grounds of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This was offered in sacrifice,” do not eat it on account of the one who called attention to it and on account of conscience;”

St Paul’s instruction to not eat meat offered by the unbeliever who points out that it was sacrificial meat is an issue of scandal.

If the unbeliever was to offer the meat noting that it was sacrificial offereing meat, the unbeliever would see the eating of the meat as an acceptance of and partking in the sacrifice to another god. That would give the unbeliever the opinion that the eater accepted the other god. that would give scandal, and incorrect information, to the unbeliever.

Picking up a cup of coffee that has a statement does not indicate to anyone that one accepts the statement on the cup. The cup is not offered by the barista saying “would you like a cup with a statment about homosexual activity, or one with a statement about saving the seals in Greenland?”

The barista is moving too fast to even read the cup; and it is questionable how many poeple seeing someone with a cup of Starbucks in their hand would even know there was a statement on it, let alone what the statement was. I have been drinking Starbucks on and off for years, and I didn’t even know they had a statement on the cup.

The issue of consicence is the issue of the scandal given, not the fact that the meat had been offered.

 

[Katie1723]

People, we are talking about a cup of coffee for goodness sake. Y’all are making it out to be far more than it is. Direct all that passion to a worthy cause…not some coffee company. Now, for those of you interested, there will be coffee and donuts after the show.
~ Kathy ~ :wave:

 

[Anthony_s_Mom]

I haven’t had time to read everything in this thread but I had to write and say that a friend of mine has been tenaciously going after Starbucks ever since she read the same quote on her cup. The way she put it was this:

Gay marriage isn’t even legal… but we’re just supposed to accept it to the degree that it’s as normal as our cup of morning coffee. That’s just so typical… “Here America, here’s another pill for you to swallow”.

She then wrote a letter to starbucks, here’s an excerpt:

Most Americans don’t care to read about ANY sexual behavior on their coffee cups, but much less behaviors that are contrary to their values.
Hey, if we’re going to have gay coffee cups, why not have other sexually liberal cups-
“My only regret about being a prostitute is the awful disease I got, and the money didn’t turn out to be as great as I thought”
or how about
“What’s really great is having sex with like three or four people at the same time”
or
“Having sex in public is great fun”
I mean COME ON. Just because homosexual ‘culture’ is somewhat hip these days doesn’t mean your average customer wants to be forced to read about it. No one forces you to watch ‘Will and Grace’. You shouldn’t force people to read about homosexuality just to get their morning cafine fix.

This is what Starbucks wrote back to her.

Thanks for taking the time to write about “The Way I See It.” Starbucks has long been dedicated to creating a unique “third place” between home and work. We also draw on the centuries-old tradition of the coffeehouse as a place to gather, share ideas, and enjoy delicious beverages. We see this program as an extension of the coffeehouse culture - a way to promote open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals.

Because this program is meant to encourage discussion and the exchange of ideas, your feedback is very important. In fact, it’s a vital part of the conversation.

I can understand that you do not appreciate it when political speech that you disagree with appears in “The Way I See It.” Our goal with “The Way I See It” is to create a fair and balanced forum for discussion. To do this, we have invited authors representing a wide range of views. Not everybody we have invited has chosen to participate, but we will continue to make this program an inclusive one.

We also invite all customers to contribute their own quotes for consideration, and to give us feedback in our “letters to the editor” section on the website. If you would like to contribute a quote for the cup, or to respond to a particular cup you’ve seen, please feel free to do so!

Sincerely,
Diana F.

Customer Relations Representative

Starbucks Coffee Company

The fact of the matter is that we all know that they would NEVER print “Abortion is murder” or even, “Abortion Hurts Women” on their cups. Why? Because the Libs wouldn’t stand for it. I think that we should at least protest by way of a letter or email or phone call when we come across this kind of subtle indoctrination.

 

[otm]

estesbob:

Let me get this straight-he engages in sinful behavior and its my fault he was miserable?

As far as giving anti-Catholics ammuniton -why should I , when proclaiming the truth, be the least bit concerned about what others think? The Truth is Homosexual behavior is sinful- a Mortal sin at that. Starbucks chose to promote a mortal sin on their coffee cups(unless of course you agree with the quote in question that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior other than keeping it secret) I dont want to be party to promoting mortal sin so I choose not to drink their coffee. Why would you have a problem with that?

Becaause dringking the coffee is not promoting mortal sin?

By your logic, one could not deal with any Fortune 500 company, becasuse all of them either promote issues or act in ways that are objectively a mortal sin.

The issue of Remote Material Cooperation is a fact of life as well as part of the Magisterial teaching of the Church.