Will Starbucks Stores Continue to Permit Guns?Thursday, CNS News reported on a boycott against Starbucks by an anti-gun group. Friday, they reported that Starbucks has endorsed a gay marriage bill in Washington State. In two days, CNS News has divided the American people into four incompatible groups.

Which group are you in? And which coffee will you buy or not buy?

The National Gun Victim’s Action Council (NGAC) will lead a national boycott of Starbucks” Feb 14th. Starbucks currently permits openly carried firearms in the 43 states that permit open carry. The NGAC wants to coerce Starbucks into banning guns in its stores because every coffee shoppe should advocate for “gun safety”. Well, that idea made me want to brew a big pot of Café Verona, right now, using the full 2 tablespoons for every 4 ounces of water, so I can fully support this bastion of American rights; but I had better wait until February 14th to make my politically motivated purchases of Starbucks java. On that magic day every vote for Starbucks is a vote for the 2nd Amendment.

In 2010, a similar boycott by Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 2010 failed. Why, you ask? Well, because Starbucks was too busy formulating a different “socially responsible” position to have time to calculate the most correct political position on handguns.

They just unveiled that position: Starbucks is pro-homosexual marriage. Last week they added their “name to the list of major corporations that have endorsed a gay marriage bill in Washington State, saying the legislation shares the company’s values at its core.” Conservatives and pro-family organizations are not pleased—nor am I.

Now America is divided into four groups.

1.      Anti-marriage and pro-gun.

If you are in favor of gay marriage—and refuse to correct your thinking in the next two weeks—and you like the 2nd Amendment, on February 14th, you get to make a statement by drinking Maxwell House. I think your statement might sound like this: “Yelch!”

2.      Pro-marriage and anti-gun.

If you defend marriage between a man and a woman and you think taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will protect you from criminals that don’t get permits and don’t “open carry”, then February 14 is your day to buy coffee from Starbucks! Don’t like coffee or don’t like the flavor of Starbucks? Buy a gift certificate for someone else. Either way, spend your money with the Big Barista from the Great Northwest and make a statement. Spend a lot and get an exclamation point!

3.      Anti-marriage and anti-gun.

If you hate both traditional marriage and gun rights, what are you doing at Caffeinated Thoughts?

4.      Pro-marriage and pro-gun. If you understand that marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by our Creator for His glory and our good; if you understand that when guns are outlawed, criminals and tyrants have more freedom to take away our freedom; if you cling to your Bibles and your guns; if you’re like me on both these questions, what do you do?

Here’s a thought. Spend your day doing what you would normally do. Drink what you would normally drink, pray, read your Bible, work hard, spend time with your spouse, kids, grandkids, eat chocolates.

Oh, yeah, February 14 is Valentine’s Day. You’d better eat chocolates.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
    1. The same day that counterfeiting $20 was seen as being detrimental to the real $20 bill.

      1. LOL.  Funny how so-called enlightened moderns are also so willing to throw thousands of years of human history under the bus.  Just about every society has condemned homosexual activity as deviant, and the ones that didn’t eventually fell.  But now suddenly it’s “normal.”  I guess many of the cheerleaders just think they’re so much smarter than anyone else who’s ever walked the planet.  😉

      2. No, but seriously. Gay marriage has been the law in my state for several years and hasn’t affected or hurt my marriage one iota. It’s been available in several other countries for longer with similar non-effect.

        I’d reserve the term ‘anti-marriage’ cynically for the frequently divorced (e.g. people like Gingrich) or literally those who simply oppose the institution of marriage or dispute the need for bureaucratic recognition of marriage (i.e. those who think they don’t need piece of paper to recognize a relationship). Being ‘anti-gay marriage’ is not synonymous with being ‘anti-marriage’. Don’t conflate the two.

      3. I’m glad your marriage is doing well. Mine is too; thanks for a wonderful wife who tolerates all my hobbies (including blogging)!

        I grant that easy, serial, and no-fault divorce has long been a bigger enemy of marriage than the homosexual counterfeit marriage. In fact, no-fault divorce laws have largely transformed marriage into a desirable institution: seemingly permanent while, in fact, legally non-binding. This status has the apparent power to morally legitimize every form of sexual pairing without significant legal power to inconvenience either party with binding obligations.

        But it does not follow from that position, that counterfeit marriage has absolutely zero negative impact on marriage itself. To extend the prior metaphor, both stealing my wallet and counterfeiting currency damage me economically.

    1. I’m sorry you feel so frustrated that you were unable to make any semblance of an argument. After you catch your breath, feel free to try again.

  1. I have countless friends, family members, and co-workers who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual). If any of them finds a compatible person to marry, WONDERFUL! So how is it that my support for the same rights for my Gay friends, family members, and co-workers makes me “anti-marriage?” ALL Gay Americans are “pro-marriage,” otherwise why would we want to get married to begin with?

    1. See Above.  Also, there are no gay Americans who just want to live together and who think that marriage is antiquated, not a one?

  2. Good article.  Just to clarify, though, there’s a difference between being “pro-gun” and “pro-Second Amendment.”  I support the Second Amendment, but I don’t get all warm and fuzzy about guns.  I think they’re dangerous, especially in the wrong hands, and in a perfect world we wouldn’t need any.  I am also personally against shooting animals, unless it’s done to defend oneself or one’s property, or to keep from starving.  Furthermore, I think the Founding Fathers might have worded the Second Amendment differently had they envisioned automatic weapons, etc.  

    Anyway, I just wanted to point out that one can support the Second Amendment without being starry-eyed about guns.  🙂

    1. You make a valid point. Although there is a significant overlap between the labels, they are, in fact, distinct. I glossed over the distinction to make my tongue-in-cheek point. When we try to mix political action with commerce, our goals often get crossed.

      Thanks for taking the time to comment.

  3. Or you could just be pro-liberty, PERIOD, and ignore these distinctions that tyrants create, including those purporting to speak for God (and/or repeating those who purported to do so).

    Marraige was instituted by Man for the sustained, stable proliferation of the Human Race. As the Human Race can now more than sustain its own proliferation and Man has dropped any real effort to foster stable families (no matter the sexual orientation of the parents or guardians), it’s long past time we stop making the Founding Fathers and every other pro-liberty historical figure roll in their graves.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Senators Introduce NDAA Amendment to Strengthen Cybersecurity

Seven U.S. Senators introduced an amendment to the NDAA that directs the president to elevate Cyber Command to a Combatant Command.

Senate Bill Rewrite to Allow Feds Warrantless Acess to Email

Senator Patrick Leahy will introduce a bill rewrite to the Senate Judiciary Committee that would allow federal warrantless access to email.

Lindsey Graham Introduces Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced S. 1553, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill he is sponsoring in the U.S. Senate on Thursday.

Iowa Republicans Hold Line Against Omnibus Bill

Rod Blum, Steve King, David Young, Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley voted no on the Omnibus bill that passed Congress to avert a shutdown.