Conservatives are hallucinating gays in Starbuck's coffee cups

What's interesting is that the whining of conservatives about this cup doesn't even have anything to do with gay marriage. Even if it were two men or two women holding hands, that doesn't say anything about them being married. They're merely expressing affection, and in the homophobe's tiny puritanical world this is simply horrible. They will not subject their kids to the mere public display of gay love. It's as if they are afraid their kids will turn gay just by seeing gay people holding hands or kissing. It's really a form of mental illness----this fear and demonization of people based solely on who they love. I say Starbuck's should start decorating all their cups with gay couple cartoons and watch the homophobes spaz out about it. lol! Welcome to the 21st century bigots. You don't like it, go buy your coffee somewhere else.

(Nov 24, 2017 05:27 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:So according to that definition, I "reflect greatly on your character"?

lol! No moron. That wasn't a definition. That was an example sentence showing useage. Don't you know how to read a dictionary?

Yes, an example that illustrates the definition. Again with the vocabulary lesson:

associate -
to join as a partner, friend, or companion
to keep company with
to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions

So do you think I'm a "partner, friend, or companion" to you? O_o

Quote:

Quote:So you and I " interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity"?

Apparently you can't be taught simple vocabulary.

socialize, verb.
4.
to associate or mingle sociably with others

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialize

Hey, at least you found a dictionary for once.

Again, see the above definition of "associate".
So do you think I'm a "partner, friend, or companion" to you? O_o

Quote:

Quote:You have to be trolling. No one can be such an imbecile that they cannot connect the simple dots between gay sex and a formal relationship socially approving sexual relations (e.g. marriage). You're fabricating a mythical unicorn called the married celibate gay.


Marriage is literally described as a joining of the flesh in the Bible:

"He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”" - Matthew 19:4-6

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." - Genesis 2:24

"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2&3


And only heterosexual marriage is expressly approved:

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord." - Proverbs 18:22



You were saying, dipshit?  Rolleyes

Those bible verses only praise marriage. They don't condemn gay marriage, There is nothing in the bible condeming gay marriage and you know it. Not that the bible condeming anything means shit. I mean it basically condemns sex outside of marriage, and we all know how well that's goin don't we?

Follow simple logic for once.

Marriage is a joining of the flesh
Homosexual joining of flesh is clearly condemned
Hence, homosexual marriage is clearly condemned


But don't worry. I'm sure everyone here gives you too much credit to assume you're that idiotic. We all know you're only trolling.

(Nov 24, 2017 09:28 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: What's interesting is that the whining of conservatives about this cup doesn't even have anything to do with gay marriage. Even if it were two men or two women holding hands, that doesn't say anything about them being married. They're merely expressing affection, and in the homophobe's tiny puritanical world this is simply horrible. They will not subject their kids to the mere public display of gay love. It's as if they are afraid their kids will turn gay just by seeing gay people holding hands or kissing. It's really a form of mental illness----this fear and demonization of people based solely on who they love. I say Starbuck's should start decorating all their cups with gay couple cartoons and watch the homophobes spaz out about it. lol! Welcome to the 21st century bigots. You don't like it, go buy your coffee somewhere else.

It's only your straw man that interjects gay marriage. Neither your OP article or anything you've shown since have indicated any complaints about this cup having to do with gay marriage specifically.

Normal people don't subject children to things they find immoral. It has nothing to do with fears of taking on that behavior and everything to do with requiring some degree of maturity. It's the same reason normal people don't subject kids to graphic violence, drug use, pornography, etc.. Are they being violence, drug, and porn bigots?  

So you're obviously making straw man arguments, even about motive. You're an anti-religious bigot, who has no problem depriving people of basic human rights to satisfy your personal agenda. But I agree. Starbucks should go whole hog advocating its LGBT agenda. Let the market sort it out.

---

(Nov 24, 2017 06:52 PM)Leigha Wrote: "...participate in gay weddings..."

Or is tacitly condoning something you believe immoral A-okay in whatever passes for morality with you?
Would you force someone to make a Nazi cake? O_o


You posted that ^^, Syne. Why are you introducing this analogy unless you somehow put on the same level a gay couple wanting a wedding cake to celebrate their secular union, with a Nazi? 0..o Sorry, that is exactly what bigotry is.

No one is forcing Christian business owners to do anything, but they shouldn't be surprised if their bigotry goes viral through social media, and the government steps in to take a closer look. Using the Bible as a blueprint to discriminate against people in one's business, isn't really what religious freedom is about. Where would that end? The Bible also speaks about people of the same ethnicity marrying the same ethnicity, and people not being ''unequally yoked'' in marriage. So, if a couple walks in, the bride to be being Jewish, and the groom to be being Christian, the same Christian baker should just be allowed to discriminate and refuse to bake a wedding cake for them, too? Civil liberties actually trump religious nuances, when it comes to running a secular business.

This doesn't really have anything to do with Starbucks, but if you dislike what they're doing with their cups, don't buy their product. No one is forced to do business, and Starbucks shouldn't be forced to pretend like gay people are inferior simply because their conservative right customer base feels that way. I always marvel at the hatred spewed by a group of people (Christians) who are supposed to be all about love.

No, oh so simple one. A "Nazi cake" is just an example of something else people may find morally reprehensible to produce. If I had any confidence in your (and especially MR's) sense of modesty, I could have made the same analogy of phallic cakes. But I assume there's no ambiguity in Nazism being morally reprehensible. If you allow the denial of service for one but not the other, you are a hypocrite...which is why no one here has answered that question yet. You know your answer would  destroy your own argument. You'd be forced to quit this cute little "bigot" charade and actually address forcing labor over conscientious objection. What legal activity do you find morally reprehensible? What if the government could force you to execute a death row inmate?

And if gays only had civil unions ("secular union"), there would be little conflict with traditional marriage. That's why I think all government-involved marriage should only be civil unions, i.e. civil contracts. Marriage is a traditional cultural term that government should not be in the business of endorsing new definitions for.

Do you even hear yourself? If the "government steps in", they are forced. That's what government does, by threat of fines, jail, or actual force. As long as there aren't death threats and other illegal activity, Christian businesses would happily weather social media. They generally believe in the free market, and if you did too, you would believe that was enough to drive them out of business. So you obviously don't believe enough people believe as you do.

Just because you wish to see it as solely discrimination doesn't change the fact that it is conscientious objection...a matter of free expression of not only religion but thought (arguably a more fundamental freedom) as well. There is nothing in the Bible against interracial/inter-ethnic marriage. Go look for yourself. It does teach about being "unequally yoked with unbelievers", but Christians and Jews (and even ostensibly Muslims) believe in the same god.


Until you can answer my simple analogy, you have no grounds for moral preening. You have to demonstrate your own moral consistency before you can assert any moral superiority.

Quote:Yes, an example that illustrates the definition. Again with the vocabulary lesson:

No moron. It demonstrates useage, not definition. The predicate of the sentence isn't part of the definition.

cat, noun.

A feline mammal. ex. The cat jumped over the fence.

"Jumped over the fence" isn't part of the defintion.

Quote:associate -
to join as a partner, friend, or companion
to keep company with
to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions

So do you think I'm a "partner, friend, or companion" to you? O_o

"associate- to keep company with"

Anything else?

Quote:Hey, at least you found a dictionary for once.

Again, see the above definition of "associate".

Right...to keep company with.

Quote:Marriage is a joining of the flesh
Homosexual joining of flesh is clearly condemned
Hence, homosexual marriage is clearly condemned

Uh no. Marriage and having sex aren't the same thing. You can be married and not have sex. And you can have sex and not be married. Are you too stupid to actually get this?

Quote:It's only your straw man that interjects gay marriage. Neither your OP article or anything you've shown since have indicated any complaints about this cup having to do with gay marriage specifically.

You're the one that's bitching about gay marriage. I'm merely showing how all this bitching has nothing to do with the OP.

Quote:Normal people don't subject children to things they find immoral. It has nothing to do with fears of taking on that behavior and everything to do with requiring some degree of maturity. It's the same reason normal people don't subject kids to graphic violence, drug use, pornography, etc.. Are they being violence, drug, and porn bigots? Rolleyes

Normal people don't freak out over public displays of affection like holding hands either. Which just shows how abnormal homophobes really are.

Quote:So you're obviously making straw man arguments, even about motive. You're an anti-religious bigot, who has no problem depriving people of basic human rights to satisfy your personal agenda. But I agree. Starbucks should go whole hog advocating its LGBT agenda. Let the market sort it out.

No..those who freak out over coffee cup cartoons of two gender-nonspecific hands holding each other are the bigots. We live in a free society. Gay people can now walk down the street and express affection in public without being attacked by nutcases like you. And Starbuck's has the total right to print whatever it wants on it's own coffee cups given it isn't obscene. It's a tolerant and freemarket society now. Get used to it.

(Nov 22, 2017 01:29 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Since Starbucks is a commercial enterprise then I see no reason for them to promote anything but their product.

It's counterproductive in marketing terms for a company to behave in such a way as to alienate a large number of prospective customers. That's why commercial enterprises should take care to avoid controversy.

Quote:They could employ a dog humping a leg and if that image sold more coffee then that's what it's all about. More controversy the better.

It's conceivable that doing something controversial might work to a company's advantage in certain markets. But it needs to be carefully targeted. Gay coffee cups might (arguably) win Starbucks more business in certain San Francisco neighborhoods (I'm doubtful that it would have a big effect even there), but the cups will almost certainly have the opposite effect in rural Texas (let alone the more traditional parts of the Muslim world).

So it seems to me that a gay-specific marketing strategy like that would make more sense for a small local San Francisco cafe that already caters to a gay clientele, than for a massive world-wide business whose prospective customers will have a wide variety of views on the subject.

I don't consider it really targeting the LGBT community from a marketing view, as much as Starbucks is displaying a more inclusive marketing strategy. In the past, gay people were excluded out of ads, now, they're part of the marketing strategy because companies realize that excluding part of your customer base isn't very wise, even if it's all in the name of profitability.

(Nov 25, 2017 07:31 PM)Leigha Wrote: I don't consider it really targeting the LGBT community from a marketing view, as much as Starbucks is displaying a more inclusive marketing strategy. In the past, gay people were excluded out of ads, now, they're part of the marketing strategy because companies realize that excluding part of your customer base isn't very wise, even if it's all in the name of profitability.

So, virtue signaling. That's actually a pretty cynical market strategy to associate moral superiority with your product. But I guess many Starbucks customers are already coffee snobs, so it isn't much of a leap.

I don't really think it's virtue signaling. For those of us who are heterosexual - when it comes to ads, movies, etc heterosexual themes have always been the norm. This doesn't mean I see commercials and blurt out ''there's a heterosexual theme,'' but it's just always present, and we have become immune to the representation of our own group.

If I were gay, and I only saw heterosexual couples in advertisements, movies, etc...not sure how it might make me feel. But, you see, it's not something I ever have to think about, because heterosexuals are ALWAYS represented, as if anything outside of that is considered taboo, or controversial. Walk a mile in another's shoes....

The fact that we're discussing this shows that Starbucks' marketing strategy is winning.

(Nov 25, 2017 07:55 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 25, 2017 07:31 PM)Leigha Wrote: I don't consider it really targeting the LGBT community from a marketing view, as much as Starbucks is displaying a more inclusive marketing strategy. In the past, gay people were excluded out of ads, now, they're part of the marketing strategy because companies realize that excluding part of your customer base isn't very wise, even if it's all in the name of profitability.

So, virtue signaling. That's actually a pretty cynical market strategy to associate moral superiority with your product. But I guess many Starbucks customers are already coffee snobs, so it isn't much of a leap.

Inclusion isn't about moral superiority. It's a message of everyone is equal. That's not elitism by any stretch. Christian businesses otoh? Yeah.."we are so morally superior to gays that we refuse to business with them for their weddings". That's the very definition of self-righteous exclusiveness.

(Nov 25, 2017 08:18 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Nov 25, 2017 07:55 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 25, 2017 07:31 PM)Leigha Wrote: I don't consider it really targeting the LGBT community from a marketing view, as much as Starbucks is displaying a more inclusive marketing strategy. In the past, gay people were excluded out of ads, now, they're part of the marketing strategy because companies realize that excluding part of your customer base isn't very wise, even if it's all in the name of profitability.

So, virtue signaling. That's actually a pretty cynical market strategy to associate moral superiority with your product. But I guess many Starbucks customers are already coffee snobs, so it isn't much of a leap.

Inclusion isn't about moral superiority. It's a message of everyone is equal. That's not elitism by any stretch. Christian businesses otoh? Yeah.."we are so morally superior to gays that we refuse to business with them for their weddings". That's the very definition of self-righteous exclusiveness.

While I agree in principle, the only thing that makes the situation with the Christian baker a little grayer than other more clear cut scenarios, is that she felt if she baked a cake for a gay couple's wedding, she would be somehow participating in celebrating a union she feels is ''sinful,'' and goes against her morals. So, should she be forced to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings? No, I don't think so, but...she shouldn't be surprised when people label her a bigot, don't agree with how she handled things, and it all goes viral on social media. The government's involvement to impose fines or run her out of business for discrimination is extreme, yet I can see why they'd get involved, because where would the discrimination end? If that same baker refuses to do business with a couple that is interracial, would that be okay? 

That gay couple was especially hurt I think, because they gave her a lot of business over the years, knew her personally and were dumb founded when she refused to bake a cake for their wedding. It seemed personal, from what I read about it.

Quote:So, should she be forced to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings? No, I don't think so,

A person can't physically be forced to bake a cake, but they can be fined as per the state non-discrimination laws. She is blatantly discriminating against a class of people in the name of her religion. Should others who believe blacks are subhumans based on their religion be able to discriminate against them? No..religion cannot be used to violate the laws of the state. Like you point out, that's a slippery slope that will end up with compounds of non-taxpaying rebels and polygamous cults of incestous child molesters. We have to draw the line somewhere, and discrimination is the best place to do that.