Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 11 years, 10 months ago
    A business has a right to voice their views. They should be prepared to accept the consequences of those views, good or bad.

    I'm getting real tired of all the dividing that's going on in our culture, so given the option between 2 equal companies to do business with I'll go with the one who doesn't try to push an agenda beyond the sale of their wares.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 10 months ago
      pirate, this is an interesting debate regarding businesses having the right to express their opinion. First, as a publicly traded company, Starbucks has an obligation to maximize profits legally. If the CEO and Board of Directors' public views in the name of the company decrease sales, when is it still appropriate to voice them?
      Part of any mission of a company should include the promotion of the health of the company. To that end, ALL companies should publicly promote freedom in the US and throughout the World. Is the issue of non-traditional sanction of marriage a freedom/liberty issue. I argue it is not.
      Next, a company should be able to publicly comment on political issues affecting their company. Having to cover same sex partners with benefits by law due to marriage laws, qualifies. In this case, the company says yes we should. While other companies argue No, we shouldn't.
      In this case, the comments exceed their need to respond to a business related issue, and leaves them open to a shareholder derivative lawsuit.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 11 years, 10 months ago
        I totally agree K. When the CEO and BOD of a publicly traded business start to act in a way detrimental to the health and growth of that business (read profits), it is incumbent upon the share holders to remove and replace those causing harm to the company. The rest of us can vote with our wallets.

        Will the shareholders take a stand? Probably only if it effects their 401K.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by SNAFU 11 years, 10 months ago
          This reminds me a lot of what I have been reading about that is going on with the former Retail Giant JCPenney, Their Current CEO is Actively sending the company hurtling off a Cliff, yet the Board "WILL NOT" Fire Him Regardless of Shareholders wanting him gone.

          The Board's Excuse is Supposedly that this CEO, is "To Big To Fire"
          (Shareholders are Dumping their stock like a hot rock as a result)

          Figure that one out....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by eskslo 11 years, 10 months ago
        Well stated and articulate as always khalling. I especially agree with your comments about Starbucks sticking to how the issue affects business. In this case the CEO is simply stating an emotional response to the issue and offering now business insight as to its effect on the company. To me this seems inappropriate not in the sense of his right to an opinion, but to how he carried it out. Careless and emotional as usual from the left. I have a feeling that is you asked this guy privately if he cared how this behavior effected sale, he would probably say he didn't care and doesn't want to sell coffee to close minded people, or something to that effect. Just a hunch, but again not a smart idea for business in my opinion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 11 years, 10 months ago
          eskslo,
          The only thing I can think of to legitimize this stance from a corporate perspective, is Brand. How do they stand separate from their competition? Do they have a marketing plan akin to cigarette or beer companies? I drink Starbucks. I believe in fair trade, environmental causes, I like certain kinds of music, etc.
          I'll bet it's more slick than commit.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 10 months ago
      That's exactly what the brainwashed masses gulp down, yet they are failing to recognize that the defining of everything is the most divisive and ostracizing practice. It is the manna, the elixir of the left's belief system, and it is used with masterful precision to identify and cow all those with whom they disagree.

      So if you believe in traditional marriage, that's supposed to define you as being socially amoral. What if you believe in traditional marriage AND that gay marriages should be a non issue? How about the employees in "traditional" marriages? Are they going to be told to ship out? I personally don't go there, but this just confirms the aversion I've already felt.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ kathywiso 11 years, 10 months ago
    I have NEVER bought a cup of coffee at Starbucks, because they refused to sell coffee to our troups, it was a few years back, and of course sorossnopes said it was false but stuck with me as a corp I did not want to support.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by eskslo 11 years, 10 months ago
      Where did you hear about the refusal with the troops?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ kathywiso 11 years, 10 months ago
        An e-mail more than a few years back. I did look into it and there was a denial from the company, but only because it went viral.... I make my own coffee at home anyway, but there are a few of them around. Dunkin Donuts is right across the street, so I go there if I find a need to get a cup on the road.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 10 months ago
    I think a business has a right to voice their views..(actually it makes more sense if it's the owner, but whatever.) I couldn't care less about Starbucks OR the gay marriage issue. Chick fil A's owner, when asked, explained he believed in traditional marriage (wait...why do we have to use the term 'traditional marriage for what has been known as marriage since forever, but no one calls gay marriage UNtraditional? I just realized that annoys me)... anyway, Chick Fil A's owner said he's a Christian who believes marriage is between a man and woman, but he doesn't believe in discriminating people who believe differently...and I think Chick fil A is doing just fine. Starbucks IS discriminating, apparently...so there's the difference I guess. Sounds like Starbucks is being very intolerant of the intolerant... I'm not sure if that's okay. Is it? Maybe their share holders should decide.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by eskslo 11 years, 10 months ago
      Starbucks "intolerance of the intolerant" as you very accurately put it, is typical response of the liberal. Lash out emotionally against anyone who has a different view, rather then reason with them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo