Gays go to Starbucks; CWA to
On April 15, this will happen across the nation:
People of all sexual orientations are being asked to show up at their local Starbucks and display their support for LGBT equality, using their smoochable lips to peacefully demonstrate their commitment to the cause. It's not sanctioned by Starbucks. It's not forcing anything upon anyone. It's just a cute, grassroots way to demonstrate that gay people are, in fact, a vibrant part of the loving, tax-paying, latte-sipping public. Whether ones supports or opposes LGBT rights, surely they can respect the right to civilly hold a demonstration. Right?
Well, no. Those bias baristas at the Concerned Women For America are serving up a venti freak-out-uccino:
While Starbucks is doing what it can for America’s nutrition with its new Vivanno drink, and at the same time working for the environment by introducing cups that reduce overall “greenhouse gas emissions,” it is unfortunately about to become a site for major cultural pollution.
“Same-Sex Kiss Day” is being held on April 15th, 2009, as a way for the homosexual community to spread its message of “equality” nationwide. Parents might want to take a pass on their lattes and keep their children from unabashed displays of sexuality in their local Starbucks on this day.
They say they don’t want anyone to infringe on their rights, but they don’t seem to mind infringing on parents’ right to choose when and if their children will be exposed to the realities of an unhealthy and immoral lifestyle.
Same-Sex Kiss Day Held at Starbucks Nationwide [CWA]
Wow, you think that the smooching gays are "cultural pollution"? You suggest that folks should keep the children away? You're implying that we are somehow infringing on rights, and directly stating that our "lifestyles" are both "unhealthy and immoral"? Gee, CWA -- what queer person peed in your Chai Tazo Tea Infusion? Why you're more of a downer then day-old decaf!
But that's okay if you wanna stay away, concerned women. Just as long as you stay consistent every November hereafter, when we move this event to the nation's polling places!
"Parents might want to take a pass on their lattes."
Almost every person I've ever met who identifies as "conservative" gripes that Starbucks is either "too expensive" or their coffee is "too strong", so they most likely aren't paying customers in the first place.
And CWA ladies: those cold Frappuccino drinks you can buy almost anywhere ALSO counts as supporting Starbucks. Which is what I'm drinking right now! LOL ;)
Posted by: Scott | Mar 27, 2009 2:25:14 PM
"...parents’ right to choose when and if their children will be exposed to the realities of an unhealthy and immoral lifestyle."
The whole "unhealthy and immoral" thing aside, since when have parents had the right to choose what their children are exposed to in public places? I mean, obviously there are certain exceptions like walking around naked, but it's not the public's responsibility to prevent children from encountering viewpoints their parents disagree with.
Posted by: Dana | Mar 27, 2009 2:55:54 PM
Wow! I didn't realize that that many children were soooooooo caffeine addicted! It isn't like Starbucks offers "Kiddie Charge" portions of espresso laden drinks, or even very many of the high fructose corn syrup infused toxic slurry concoctions that the overweight pew-sitting asses pump their children full of either.
So, where are all of these Starbucks-children (maybe Jerry Lewis should host a telethon) that they are cackling about protecting? Why are they admonishing the less-than-slinky-set to waddle their chassis (with brood in tow) on past the Starbucks, and down to some other den of carnal (caramel - I loooooove caramel) delights. In all of my years of frequenting those establishments, I have maybe seen five or ten carriage bound toddlers in Starbucks. And, by outward appearances, their parental units appeared to be quite gay.
I mean, seriously, unless those fundie women are carrying around a tablet PC under one of those rolls of flab (or a PDA tucked in their overly ample bra strap), and is jonesing for a dose of internet delivered radical religiosity from the nearest Hotspot, then I just don't see it as being a problem for them.
Maybe I am just tooooooooo pragmatic (except maybe in my injudicious use of the letter 'o'). Or, maybe I am not seeing what is really going on with this tired old recycled "think of the children" ploy from the raging homophobes. They can't just come out and say how much they despise us (except, of course, for Val Stevens yesterday, and they probably called her aside to "coach" her for future performances). They have to play the victims.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 27, 2009 3:34:32 PM
"Just as long as you stay consistent every November hereafter, when we move this event to the nation's polling places!" Oh yeah. Post it to JTI, JH. Course, most don't take their kids to vote either, although I used to take my daughter when she wanted to go.
Posted by: LOrionL | Mar 27, 2009 5:09:56 PM
These are the same folks that drag their kids to protest against same-sex marriage and give them a sign to wave. "Who are we protecting marriage from Mommy?", "Any one who isn't exactly like us honey." No need to explain.
Posted by: sammyseattle | Mar 27, 2009 5:46:28 PM
I envy the younger generations (25 and younger) who will not have to deal with too many more years of this arcane and stupid crap as these old farts from CWA, the FRC, etc. will be either in the nursing home or in the cemetery. What a blessing that day will be.
Posted by: Benjamin | Mar 27, 2009 7:30:11 PM
"They say they don’t want anyone to infringe on their rights, but they don’t seem to mind infringing on parents’ right to choose when and if their children will be exposed to the realities of an unhealthy and immoral lifestyle. "
Gee, we aren't the ones handing out tiny Bibles to grade school children, are we?
Posted by: Buffy | Mar 28, 2009 6:18:03 PM
I worked at Starbucks during college and I can guarantee there was a good amount of same-sex affection going on there every single day -- and it wasn't all from me, I swear.
Anyway, it looks like I'll be going back to the ol' stomping grounds on the 15th.
Posted by: Katelyn | Mar 28, 2009 11:53:57 PM
>These are the same folks that drag their kids to protest against same-sex marriage and give them a sign to wave. "Who are we protecting marriage from Mommy?", "Any one who isn't exactly like us honey." No need to explain.<
That is SO true. These are the nutcases who show up, uninvited, to any Pride fairs and rallies, scream, wail,and shout like banshees, and then claim that they are "good Christian people". They're the ones who are dangerous, not us. There's a bunch of them in the Sacramento CA area who are mostly of Slavic descent who show up at Pride with their signs and bullhorns. My wife is a former student at a local community college, and the student council is packed with these idiots who had the gall to push a "statement" through that stated that the college was for prop HATE. Alot of them belong to the 'watchmen on the walls" hate group. Google them and get the truth about them.
Posted by: Gretchen | Mar 29, 2009 3:34:38 PM
God, but I love those hysterical ninnys.
Posted by: emma | Apr 11, 2009 7:09:42 PMcomments powered by Disqus