The Sickening Hypocrisy of Starbucks and Apple

Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks onstage as Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights hosts The 2015 Ripple Of Hope Awards honoring Congressman John Lewis, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Evercore Co-founder Roger Altman, and UNESCO Ambassador Marianna Vardinoyannis at New York Hilton on December 8, 2015 in New York City.

By Michael Brown Published on April 17, 2016

She was only 17 years-old when she died. Her father cut out her tongue and burned her alive.

What was her crime, and why did this man kill his own daughter in the most horrific imaginable way?

He was a Saudi Arabian official who worked with the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice — the religious police — and when his daughter became a Christian, he butchered and murdered her.

What does this have to do with Starbucks and Apple?

Both these companies blast Americans who stand for religious liberties and conservative moral values, even threatening states that will protect those liberties and values, claiming this discriminates against gays and lesbians.

Yet they have stores all over Saudi Arabia, a country where gays can be executed and where Muslims can kill their own family members if they convert to Christianity, as happened with this 17-year-old in 2008.

What sickening hypocrisy.

Last year, when Indiana passed a religious freedoms bill, ensuring that its citizens would not be forced to violate their consciences and participate in things like gay weddings, Tim Cook, the openly gay CEO of Apple, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, stating, “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.”

Cook opined that, “America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business. At Apple, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers’ lives. We strive to do business in a way that is just and fair.”

His words sounded noble: “This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.”

And so Cook, acted “courageously,” threatening Indiana with a loss of business if the state did not reverse itself, and in a matter of days, the governor and legislature caved in to the pressure, as Apple, along with other major players, succeeded in bullying the people of Indiana.

But when it comes to countries like Saudi Arabia, where adulterers are beheaded on Friday afternoons in city squares, where thieves have their hands cut off, where those who speak against the government can be lashed 1,000 times, where someone posting openly gay messages on social media can be imprisoned, and where the beheaded victims are hung on crosses and displayed publicly for days, Apple is silent, content to make its money and not rock the Muslim boat.

What “courage.” Or, more accurately, what hypocrisy.

Starbucks has also been an outspoken advocate of “gay rights,” with CEO Howard Schultz telling those “who support traditional marriage over gay marriage that their patronage is not needed at the coffee chain.”

Earlier this month, Starbucks joined more than 100 companies (including Apple) in urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to repeal the bathroom safety bill, which allegedly discriminates against LGBT rights.

How bold and courageous of Starbucks.

But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, not only does Starbucks operate all over this religiously-oppressive country, but the coffee giant completely capitulated to strict Islamic standards, removing the mermaid from its corporate logo.

Yes, you read that right. Starbucks changed its logo so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities, since the mermaid image apparently displayed too much flesh.

But when it comes to offending Christians, Starbucks could care less, introducing “Holiday” cups last December in place of “Christmas” cups and trashing Christian sensitivities when they are in conflict with gay sensitivities.

Now, I don’t doubt that Cook and Schultz feel strongly about their views and actually believe that these important religious liberties bills are a threat to LGBT rights.

But their selective outrage is sickening and their moral hypocrisy glaring.

And so, when they pull their businesses from countries like China, with all its human rights violations, and Saudi Arabia, with its atrocities carried out in the name of Islam, we can take their indignation seriously.

Until then, the louder they protest here in America, the louder they shout their hypocrisy.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Dean Bruckner

    Wretched cowards, those companies’ chief officers. And hypocrites and bullies too. Despicable.

  • Cowboy

    Are people willing to take a stand against big business and stop using their products? Willing to give up the IPhones? Give up their fancy coffee?

    • spaul6290

      Sadly, nope. The body of Christ has the strongest buying power and economic force in the USA to bring corporations such as these to their knees.

    • hmschlpatriot

      Haven’t gone to Starbucks in years. Wouldn’t use an Apple product if you gave me one for free.

  • millers3888

    You do realize the same argument could be tossed back at Christians. While you all whine and moan about gay wedding cakes, ACTUAL religious persecution is occurring in the Middle East. Why not work to help them rather than complain about being the most persecuted group in America becaus LGBTs.

    • Yonderthehill

      There are US Christian organizations dedicated to helping the persecuted in the Middle East, it’s just our US government is hesitant from helping these orgs cuz of Obummer and his love of Islam.

      • millers3888

        And many LGBT organizations dedicate their time to helping fight for human rights abroad. What’s Browns point?

        • Yonderthehill

          They’re not fighting for human rights, just gay/lesbian/q—r rights. Using “human rights” is just a tactic the gay left used to promote their anti-Christian hatred and their secular, hedonistic lifestyle.

          • millers3888

            The right to live in peace is human rights, not a “tactic by the gay left”. What a sad person you are.

          • Yonderthehill

            There are none so blind as those who will not see such devious tactics by others to undermine and corrupt a moral, just, and decent society for wicked and decadent ways.

          • millers3888

            Uh huh. So supressing LGBTs is human rights. Sicko.

          • Yonderthehill

            So suppressing Christians is human rights is what you wanted. Sicko.

          • disqus_JtOl9TMmfD

            No one is suppressing christian rights. You’re perpetuating fox news level hysteria.

          • Yonderthehill

            Yes, your kind is doing that right now. No such Faux News hysteria BS.

          • xram

            Stop lying. Christians have the right to dissent from participation in ceremonies that offend their morals. Little girls have the right to use a bathroom not occupied by a person with a penis.

          • acontraryview

            “Christians have the right to dissent from participation in ceremonies that offend their morals.”

            As individuals you are quite correct. If they are acting in the capacity of a provider of a product or service from a business of public accommodation, their are legal limits to that right.

            “Little girls have the right to use a bathroom not occupied by a person with a penis.”

            Please cite where that right is stated.

          • xram

            Please state where it is stated that a person with a penis has the right to pee next to an 8 year old little girl. Any idiot with half a brain can see that little girls have a right to privacy from viewing a penis, even if only inadvertently.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite where there is a right for little girls to use a bathroom not occupied by a person with a penis. Got it. Thanks.

            “Any idiot with half a brain”

            Since you brought that up…..woman’s restrooms only have stalls. So exactly how is it that a man would be peeing “next to an 8 year old little girl” and that she would be able to – even inadvertently – see his penis when he was peeing?

          • xram

            Actually, only an insane person would deny such a right. But the right to privacy is certainly one. And no, the stalls are not adequate protection, but in any case, this wouldn’t necessarily apply to many showers in public facilities.

          • xram

            Why do you imagine that LGBT people have any human rights? Where do these rights come from? Who says they have any rights? Why do you think anyone has any rights at all?

          • xram

            Why is it a human right to live in peace? Sez who?

  • acontraryview

    “Americans who stand for religious liberties and conservative moral values”

    His words sounded noble, but they were disingenuous. One is free to hold to conservative moral values and live their life according to the values. But that is not sufficient for Dr. Brown and some others. No, while they talk so sweetly about love and care for others, underneath that they have absolutely no issue with forcing their moral values on others and harming them in the process.

    They talk about religious liberty, but what they really want is a blank check to discriminate and to infringe upon the liberty of others. They want to be exempt from rules that govern every business owner by citing their religious beliefs. They don’t want “religious liberty” – they want ‘discrimination liberty”.

    What sickening hypocrisy.

    • Cowboy

      Only asking that people respect my beliefs just as they want their beliefs respected. Gay people can marry – the Supreme Court says so.
      I just don’t want to be forced to participate. Just as you may not want to be forced to attend church.

      • acontraryview

        “I just don’t want to be forced to participate.”

        You aren’t nor can you be. The decision to run a business is a choice. The decision as to what products and services the business offers is a choice. There is no “forcing”.

        You are free to live your values, as long as you do so within the confines of the law, just like everyone else.

        • xram

          It is forcing, since you are saying that one cannot run a business according to one’s religious principles. You realize that the freedom to do so was the main motivation for the original English colonists coming here in the first place?

          You would, no doubt, have said to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King that they were free to live their values within the confines of the law. After all, it was their CHRISTIAN values that motivated their civil disobedience.

          • acontraryview

            “since you are saying that one cannot run a business according to one’s religious principles.”

            That would depend on the religious beliefs involved. If operating your business according to your religious beliefs violates the law, then, no, one is not allowed to run a business according to one’s religious beliefs. For example, if it was your religious belief that the races should not mix, that would not entitle you to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple.

            “You realize that the freedom to do so was the main motivation for the original English colonists coming here in the first place?”

            No, the main motivation of the Pilgrims was NOT the ability to operate a business according to their religious beliefs.

            “You would, no doubt, have said to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King that they were free to live their values within the confines of the law.”

            They were. They also believed certain laws were wrong and they fought to have them changed. in like fashion, you are certainly free to fight for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Parks and King supported and which limits the ability to people to operate a business solely based upon their religious beliefs) as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation – including that which protects against discrimination based upon religious belief. Let me know how that goes.

            “it was their CHRISTIAN values that motivated their civil disobedience.”

            Actually, it was the oppression and discrimination that black people experienced that motivated their civil disobedience.

          • xram

            Dr. King said an unjust law is no law at all. Any law that forces a person to participate in a religious ceremony that violates his beliefs is an unjust law and is null and void. And your understanding of the Puritans is quite superficial, it seems. Your historical myopia is pretty serious. The entire black civil rights movement was birthed and nurtured in black churches, just as the abolitionist movement of the previous century was birthed and nurtured in Evangelical churches. What you are arguing is that if you can get a law passed, any law, then religious liberties must be retracted.

          • acontraryview

            “Any law that forces a person to participate in a religious ceremony ”

            There is no such law.

            “And your understanding of the Puritans is quite superficial, it seems.”

            How so?

            “The entire black civil rights movement was birthed and nurtured in black churches”

            How is the location of where many were rallied to support the civil rights movement relative to the basis for fighting for equal rights? What Christian values state that all people should be treated equally under the law? Would it be the sections that spoke of slavery, how slaves were to be treated, and how one could sell their daughters into slavery?

            “What you are arguing is that if you can get a law passed, any law, then religious liberties must be retracted.”

            Where did I make such an argument?

          • xram

            The section that tells us were are created in God’s image. The section where the apostle Paul tells us that the slave trade is a grave sin. And the indentured servitude of the Old Testament was a far cry from the chattel slavery of the Americas, but in any case, this temporary accommodation to ancient cultural practice was specifically undermined by New Testament teaching. The point of where the rallies were conducted is that it was exactly the principles of Christianity, and Christians who understood them, that prompted the entire movement towards equality starting with the abolitionist movement of the late 1700s through the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.

            The notion of inequality was derived from a philosophy grounded in the concept of The Great Chain of Being (see Arthur Lovejoy’s book of that name) which was first used by the ancient Greeks to justify the subjection of women (the book Centaurs and Amazons by Page du Bois) and entered into Western philosophy and theology via neo-platonism in the teachings of the gnostic works of the pseudonymous Dionysius as adapted by Thomas Aquinas, among others (Fran O’Rourke – Pseudo-Dionysuis and the Metaphysics of Aquinas). Lovejoy shows how this worldview became dominant in Europe in the middle ages. It even impacted the translation of the highly influential King James Bible, enabling support for such notions as the divine right of kings, strict divisions in social class, slavery, etc. E. M. W. Tillyard, in his excellent little book, The Elizabethan World Picture, shows just how taken for granted the Chain of Being was. He argues that you can’t understand Shakespeare without it.

            I’ve read a good bit of the works defending slavery in the 18 and early 19th centuries, and even those written by Christian theologians heavily depend on the notion of the Chain of Being to justify it. Winthrop Jordan, a Harvard educated historian documents this in White Over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro, 1550-1812.

            I’ve spent a good bit of my academic career researching and refuting this notion of the Chain of Being as antithetical to the ontology of the Hebrew Bible as well as New Testament teaching. That this notion finally won out and was expressed in the American Declaration and Constitution is very much a result of the Great Awakening series of revivals in 18th century America (as thoroughly documented by Bready).

            At the end of the day, a fully Biblical anthropology provides a solid ontological basis for the full equality of all persons, in terms of their value and unalienable rights. In fact, there is no other ontology or metaphysics which successfully does so. Certainly not the Chain of Being (which is also underneath the Hindu caste system and Eastern notions of karma and reincarnation). And clearly not atheism, either, in which all humans are mere globs of meat, collections of atoms thrown together by chance, just like a pile of manure.

            And yeah, your attitude that no religious liberty may be exercised contrary to a law that happens to be on the books is very much and argument that religious liberties must be retracted if you can get a law passed.

    • Yonderthehill

      You’re a stupid man. Christians live and die by their beliefs in the Bible and stand by them. They wanted religious liberty to do so for their own communities and does not wanted false believers, heathens, and hateful idiots (like you) to dictate terms what Christians can and can’t do when religious liberty. They wanted a righteous, clean and decent society, not a heathen, hedonistic, and hateful society that which you’re a part of.

      • acontraryview

        “You’re a stupid man.”

        Yes, Nothing says “Christian” like starting out a post with an insult. No doubt Jesus would be proud.

        For Christians who want what you describe, they should find someplace other than the US to live. Our Constitution does not support such a society.

        • Wayne Cook

          LOL…you did…and did…and did…you judged, and without evidence. Nowhere in Dr Brown’s article were the words “forcing their moral values” mentioned, yet you forced your own template on him. Sorry, your whiny opinion is without merit or standing, on the basis of illogic. No one has said what you are claiming.

          • acontraryview

            “Nowhere in Dr Brown’s article were the words “forcing their moral values” mentioned”

            Nor did I say they did. I would submit, however, then when you wish to legally limit the freedom of others, and harm them financially and legally in the process, based upon your views of what is moral and what is not, you are forcing your morals on others. If you disagree, please explain your basis for disagreeing.

            How would being allowed to refuse service based upon one’s religious beliefs not be a blank check to discriminate? What other end result do such laws have other than legally allow discrimination?

          • xram

            So you want to limit the freedom of Christians to refrain from participating in events that violate their beliefs and if they do not participate, you want the power to harm them financially by fines and possibly jail time. By you own definition and example, then, you want to force YOUR moral values on them. Yet you say it is wrong to force one’s moral values on others. This is a textbook example of hypocrisy.

          • acontraryview

            “So you want to limit the freedom of Christians to refrain from participating in events that violate their beliefs and if they do not participate, you want the power to harm them financially by fines and possibly jail time.”

            Do I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation? Yes, I do. Do you not?

            “By your own definition and example, then, you want to force YOUR moral values on them.”

            You can’t “force moral values” on someone. What moral values a person has are their own and completely up to them.

          • xram

            Wrong on both counts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never intended to include issues of behavior such as homosexuality, nor does it trump the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. And of course you can force moral values. A huge part of the law involves enforcing one set of moral values over another, so this is just a stupid statement. Murder, rape, theft, these are all moral values. Even the notion of doing no harm to others is a moral issue. If it was illegitimate to legislate morality then we would have to do away with the greater part of the legal code, not to mention the Constitution.

            And moral values are not autonomous. They are not completely up to the individual, unless you want to include sociopaths. You are hardwired with certain moral values, as are all people. It takes work to come to live by the notion that there are no such things as inherently good and evil acts. In fact, your belief that there are such things as human rights is itself belief in a moral value. If there were no consensus that there are objective human rights, then you would have no basis to even discuss, much less complain about being denied a wedding cake. But the question is, why do you believe in such rights? Where do they come from? If you cannot demonstrate that such rights exist, then your entire case is just irrational projection of your desires on others.

          • acontraryview

            “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never intended to include issues of behavior such as homosexuality”

            Nor does it.

            “nor does it trump the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.”

            Actually, it does, as numerous SCOTUS rulings have shown.

            “A huge part of the law involves enforcing one set of moral values over another”

            That is not true. While there may be punishments for certain actions, the person being punished is still free to hold to whatever moral values they care to. When blacks were not treated equally under the law, were blacks forced to accept that as being moral? If they had been, there never would have been a civil rights movement. It is because, despite the laws, black people felt the laws were morally wrong, that the civil rights movement existed.

            “Murder, rape, theft, these are all moral values.”

            No, those are acts, not morals.

            “Even the notion of doing no harm to others is a moral issue.”

            Agreed. Yet, we have the death penalty.

            “If it was illegitimate to legislate morality then we would have to do away with the greater part of the legal code, not to mention the Constitution.”

            it’s not a question of whether it is illegitimate, it is a question of whether it is possible to force others to hold to certain moral values. It is not. Their can be a belief of the majority that certain actions are wrong and thus punishment should be meted out if someone does any of those actions. But you cannot force people to hold to certain moral values. Moral values are a personal choice.

            “They are not completely up to the individual, unless you want to include sociopaths.”

            Who are they up to?

            “You are hardwired with certain moral values, as are all people.”

            There is certainly evidence that children are born with a sense of right and wrong regarding a very limited number of things.

            “It takes work to come to live by the notion that there are no such things as inherently good and evil acts.”

            What examples do you have of inherently evil acts?

            “In fact, your belief that there are such things as human rights is itself belief in a moral value.”

            Agreed. Please note your words: “your belief”. it is a choice I have made. It has not been forced upon me nor has anyone else required that I hold that belief. Thanks for supporting my point.

            “If there were no consensus”

            There has been a consensus of the majority. That’s why laws exist.

            “why do you believe in such rights?”

            I believe that when one chooses to operate a business that is open to the public that the person assumes an obligation to serve the public in a manner which does not discriminate based upon traits of the person.

            “If you cannot demonstrate that such rights exist,”

            They exist in our constitution and our laws.

          • xram

            You are dodging and obfuscating the entire question. Nobody can be forced to hold, that is, to believe certain things. Not even in the Soviet Union could Christians be forced to not believe. But THAT precisely is NOT what the protection of freedom is about. If it were, it would be simply irrelevant to have such protections. No, the free exercise clause is exactly what is implied. It is about the freedom to order and act one’s life in accordance with one’s beliefs and moral values. rape, murder, etc. are first and foremost moral principles that are then codified. The dichotomy between belief and practice is quite false. You are, after all, quite free to believe that homosexuality is not immoral, but that is clearly not enough. You want homos to be able to practice it without restriction and to impose restrictions on others so that they can do so.

            No there consensus of the majority on gay marriage was made plain in the rejection of it by big majorities in most states. It was imposed by a minority, via the courts.

            Torturing babies in inherently evil, for one. Depriving others of their property, arbitrarily, or for on’s own selfish gain is another. Cheating on your spouse. Doing a Bernie Madoff, oppressing the poor, I could go on.

            Nope. Rights don’t exist in our laws. Our laws exist to protect rights that preexist the law and that are inherent and not granted by the state. On the basis of your position, my ancestors’ ownership of slaves in the early 1800s was a right, since it was protected by law. But laws don’t make rights, and I say unequivocally that my ancestors’ slave holding was profoundly evil. The fact that a law of constitution may state that something is a right, certainly does not make it so.

    • NickRepublic

      Liar.

      • acontraryview

        Please cite what I said that was a lie.

        • dchap

          “while they talk so sweetly about love and care for others, underneath that they have absolutely no issue with forcing their moral values on others and harming them in the process.”

          Please cite where Dr. Brown has used language that would lead to your conclusion above. Seems clear that he wants the freedom to live out his moral values, not force them on others.

          As examples, he has said over and over that a t-shirt shop run by an atheist shouldn’t be forced to prints shirts with Psalm 14:1 on them (or any other Scriptures for that matter), a Muslim caterer shouldn’t be forced to cook pork for an event, a Jewish business owner shouldn’t be forced to work on the Sabbath, and a homosexual baker shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for an event supporting traditional marriage.

          It seems you are looking for something that isn’t there because otherwise, you’d be forced to admit that while Dr. Brown does disagree with the LGBT lifestyle and activism, he genuinely cares about the people. And that doesn’t fit the desired narrative of many who want to advance the LGBT agenda.

          • acontraryview

            “Please cite where Dr. Brown has used language that would lead to your conclusion above. ”

            Dr. Brown has been very clear about his support for not allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage. He has further explained that is position is based upon his beliefs as to what is moral and what is not. He has further stated that his beliefs are based upon the teachings of the Bible.

            So, when you support laws that inhibit the freedom of others and harm them financially and legally in the process, for no reason other than you morally disagree with it, you are indeed attempting to impose your morals on others.

            “he has said over and over that a t-shirt shop run by an atheist shouldn’t be forced to prints shirts with Psalm 14:1 on them (or any other Scriptures for that matter)”

            They aren’t.

            “a Muslim caterer shouldn’t be forced to cook pork for an event”

            They aren’t. What products and services the business decides to offer is completely up to them. A caterer cannot be forced to provide any particular product.

            “a Jewish business owner shouldn’t be forced to work on the Sabbath”

            He is not. A business owner is free to determine the hours of operation for their business.

            “and a homosexual baker shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for an event supporting traditional marriage.”

            He is not. Viewpoints are not a covered category. Just as a heterosexual baker is not required to bake a cake for an event supporting same-sex marriage.

            Those examples are poor ones.

            “he genuinely cares about the people.”

            How can you “genuinely care” about someone and still support harming them?

            “advance the LGBT agenda.”

            What agenda are you referring to?

          • Cowboy

            So it is okay for a Christian baker to not bake a cake for a Gay Couples wedding by what you say – that is if what you way is what you mean in that the Chrisitian baker can choose not to provide that service.

            Why are Christian businesses be sued for choosing not to provide a service?

          • acontraryview

            “So it is okay for a Christian baker to not bake a cake for a Gay Couples wedding”

            That depends. If the bakery does not offer wedding cakes, then absolutely. If the bakery offers wedding cakes, and is operates in a locale that does not include sexuality as a covered category, then absolutely. If, however, the bakery does offer wedding cakes and operates in a locale where sexuality is a covered category, then they would be in violation of the law if they turned down the order.

            “So why are Christian businesses being sued?”

            Well, first, there is no such thing as a Christian business. The business itself has no religious belief. If your question is why are business owners who are Christian being sued (and, in reality, not actually sued in most cases – in most cases complaints have been filed against, not a lawsuit filed) is because they broke the law.

          • NickRepublic

            Yes, just like the Jews broke the law in Warsaw in 1943, no?

          • acontraryview

            No, nothing like that. Do you not know how ridiculous you sound when you make a comparison like that?

          • NickRepublic

            Exactly like that. You know how ridiculous you look with your specious (at best) arguments?

          • acontraryview

            So you believe the violating the law in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is the same as violating the law regarding discrimination in public accommodations where a person if free to choose whether or not to open a business and a person is free to choose what products or services the business will offer?

            Please, explain to me how those two things are “exactly” alike.

            “specious (at best) arguments”

            What arguments of mine do you believe are “specious” and on what basis?

          • xram

            Pretty much all of them.

          • disqus_JtOl9TMmfD

            You’ve literally not responded with a single counterpoint.

          • xram

            You are certainly wrong here. There are Christian businesses, that is, businesses owned by Christians who must run their businesses according to Christian morals and principles, because THAT IS WHAT CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES!

          • acontraryview

            “There are Christian businesses, that is, businesses owned by Christians ”

            No, there are not Christian businesses. There are businesses that are owned by Christians. But the business itself does not have a religious belief.

            “Christians who must run their businesses according to Christian morals and principles, because THAT IS WHAT CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES!”

            Then they should run a business and offer products and services that will allow them to do so.

          • xram

            In other words, they should give up their liberty, their freedom to work in the area they desire, so that they can live under YOUR moral rules. The business does have a religious belief, as it is a personification of its owners and their values. You do know that legally, a corporation is a person, right? SCOTUS has ruled that just because people work in a group that is incorporated they don’t lose their constitutionally protected rights.

          • acontraryview

            “In other words, they should give up their liberty, their freedom to work in the area they desire, so that they can live under YOUR moral rules. ”

            No one, Christian or otherwise, has the liberty or freedom to operate a business in contravention of the law. Further, this has nothing to do with my moral values. Anti-discrimination laws are put into place by either a vote of the public or their elected representatives. They can be changed in the same way. if you disagree with anti-discrimination laws, you are free to work to get them change.

            “You do know that legally, a corporation is a person, right? SCOTUS has ruled that just because people work in a group that is incorporated they don’t lose their constitutionally protected rights.”

            Your knowledge of how corporations are treated under the law is severely lacking. What was the ruling in which the SCOTUS stated that in all legal matters a corporation is a person? What constitutionally protected right does a person have to operate their business outside of the law?

          • xram

            In relation to the left pitching a hissy fit over the SCOTUS ruling concerning campaign finance laws. The idea was that corporations have the same free-speech rights because they are considered as persons.

        • NickRepublic

          Everything.

          • acontraryview

            So you don’t think that Dr. Brown’s words sounded noble?

            You don’t believe that people are free to hold to conservative moral values and live their life according to the values?

            You don’t believe Brown talks sweetly about love and care for others?

            You don’t believe that Brown wants exemptions from discrimination laws based upon religious belief?

          • xram

            If someone is forced to participate in a ceremony that violates their values, then no, they obviously are not free to live their life according to their values. Are you really that dense? You simply want to force people to live according to your values, which is the reason you are a hypocrite and reveals that you are a bigot to boot.

          • acontraryview

            “If someone is forced to participate in a ceremony that violates their values”

            They aren’t forced. Opening a business is a choice. What products and services the business offers is a choice. There is no forcing.

            “You simply want to force people to live according to your values”

            No, I don’t. People should live their lives according to whatever values they choose, providing that doing so is within the parameters of the law.

          • xram

            Your obtuseness is epic. Of course there is force here. They are either forced to participate in perversion, or they are prevented, by force, from engaging in their business. And the product and service they choose to offer is to serve

          • acontraryview

            “They are either forced to participate in perversion”

            No one has been, nor can they be, forced to participate in what they view as perversion.

            “or they are prevented, by force, from engaging in their business.”

            All businesses must operate within the confines of the law. Are you suggesting that Christians should be exempt from operating their businesses according to the law?

          • xram

            I’m suggesting that the law is unjust, unconstitutional and that civil disobedience is in order. And yes, a gay wedding is perversion from a Christian standpoint. Being forced to cater or photograph such an event is to participate by lending one’s artistic gifts to it in a way that presents it a positive and normal. This is a textbook example of being forced to participate in perversion or else lose one’s livelihood.

    • Yonderthehill

      You are what Isaiah warned about:

      Isaiah 5:20: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

      • acontraryview

        What is your basis for saying that I am what Isaiah warned about?

    • Faith Inhim

      A Christian Pastor should not be forced to sign his name to a piece of or commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or declare homosexuals have a blessed Holy Union. No law prevents homosexuals from obtaining a legal document stating that the two have a legal marriage, but you will never have a Holy Union. You will you ever change the laws of nature or science, nor will God ever allow the two to become one. Can’t force God nor mother nature into allowing procreation into making you a family.

      • acontraryview

        “A Christian Pastor should not be forced to sign his name to a piece of or commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or declare homosexuals have a blessed Holy Union.”

        A Christian Pastor is not.

        “but you will never have a Holy Union, nor will you ever change the laws of nature or science, nor will God ever allow the two to become one.”

        You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

      • disqus_JtOl9TMmfD

        I’m sure you’d be just as irate if the US were predominantly Islamic and forced you to live under shariah law.
        The US has what we call religious freedom, which means you shouldn’t force people to live under christian legislature.

        • hmschlpatriot

          You’d best go back and look at the First Amendment. Nowhere does it say freedom from religion.

        • xram

          Why should we be forced to live under your atheistic law? Why do you think you can force everyone to bow to YOUR religious views?

      • Lost In Space

        He’s not sp please stop spreading lies or you will be banned from heaven!

      • CJL

        I think your comment is about another article… although I am not sure which one…

    • xram

      Why do you, in your bigotry, feel that you have the right to FORCE you values on us? You don’t think that requiring us to participate in your wedding ceremony is forcing your values on us? Okay, how about you catering a conference of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, or People Can Change? Hmmm?

      • acontraryview

        In what way have i shown bigotry?

        “feel that you have the right to FORCE you values on us?”

        I don’t. You are free to hold to whatever values you care to.

        “Okay, how about you catering a conference of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, or People Can Change? Hmmm?”

        I’m not a caterer.

        • xram

          Answer the question, coward. Are you a liar as well as a bigot? Holding a set of values means living by them. Your hypocrisy and bigotry against Christians is palpable. You support punishing those who do not hold to your values by banning them from making a living in their chosen profession. You are saying, “unless you adhere to MY values, you may not engage in the following professions.” This is fascism, pal, and you are a fascist. It is really sickening, this charade of yours.

          • acontraryview

            “Answer the question, coward. Are you a liar as well as a bigot? ”

            What question did I not answer?

            “Your hypocrisy and bigotry against Christians is palpable.”

            Where I have displayed hypocrisy and bigotry against Christians?

            “You support punishing those who do not hold to your values by banning them from making a living in their chosen profession. ”

            No, I do not. First, this has nothing to do with my values. Anti-discrimination laws are put into place either by a direct vote of the people or their elected representatives. They can be changed in the same way. If you disagree with anti-discrimination laws, you are certainly free to work to get them changed. Second, no one is banned from a chosen profession or from making a living based upon their religious beliefs.

            “You are saying, “unless you adhere to MY values, you may not engage in the following professions.””

            What values are you referring to and when did I ever say that people are not allowed to engage in the following professions?

  • Eugenio Gonzalez

    Hey listen, I’ll be very happy to make my own Puerto Rican coffee at home.

  • Cowboy

    Why isn’t this discussion addressing the issue that was brought to light. How soon will Apple and Starbucks boycott and move out of the middle eastern nations that do not give everyone equal protection?

  • john appleseed

    I was just banned from Facebook for three days for posting a harmless cartoon criticizing Smith over this. For years, the lunatic Left has assumed that all criticism of Blacks is because of racism. Now I guess they’re assuming criticism of homosexuals is because we hate homosexuals.

  • JON CHO

    I hope this article be printed and delivered to those 100 (or 80?) CEOs harassing NC Government along with Matthew 23 – Eight (original KJV) woes of Hypocrites. We pray for those CEOs who lost conscience unable to have balanced view but tilted scale view.

  • faithful

    Can you solicit funds for taking this out as a FULL PAGE retort in NY Times or Washington Post or blast this over Twitter. Right on brother, I’ve been saying for some time as well. Well Done… but not well heard!! the LBGT needs to hear this!!

  • Edward Holmes

    Boycott the Hypocrite business and musicians who hate Christians while doing business with Islam.

  • CJL

    When I read articles like this from processing Christians, I often do not know how to respond. Sometimes, I do not respond because I think that these ideas do not come from ignorance. I suspect that Michael Brown knows that he has been less than accurate with some information and interpreted events rather loosely..
    I am sure he knows that the red cups of Starbucks had nothing to do with avoiding Christmas….. The decorative cups that they used in previous years had winter scenes, not Christmas scenes.
    Both these companies have used/tried to use their influence on their home turf. They have less influence to use in other countries. It does not, however, follow that they have done nothing in Saudi Arabia about social issues there. In fact, there very presence in those countries has an impact. They might even say that their experience in those countries informs their view of the importance of guarding against oppressive, discriminatory practices becoming the norm.
    I doubt that Michael Brown cares about the companies involvement in China and Saudi Arabia. I think that he was running out of things to say to insult/undermine people speaking out against something he supports and things to say to stroke the egos of people who agree with him.
    Each of the initiatives he opposes was proposed to address a problem:
    The first issue mentioned is to address the problem of LGBT people being unable to access weddings, cakes, pizza and other services normally accessible to citizens of the U.S.A.
    The second issue is, I think, to address where people who are transgendered may access a washroom, a service which is accessible to citizens of the U.S.A.
    How about an article that respectfully addresses how people can be given access to the services (and be comfortable using them) that doesn’t offend Michael Brown’s sensibilities? Even if his ideas were very poor, it would be a step forward for him to think about the needs of other people.

    • Cowboy

      LGBT couples can access cakes – flowers – etc just like I can, merely take your business to someone who will provide the service. I don’t force anyone to do anything that they are not comfortable doing. I find someone who will willing meet my needs.

      As for restrooms – I believe everyone has access to a restroom now.

      • CJL

        The restroom issue is about transgendered people. For example, a people who are transitioning from one gender to another. If a person who was born biologically female who is becoming biologically male (as much as surgery accomplishes that) identifies as male and is wearing male clothing, etc. needs to use a washroom, where would he go? In some places in the USA, apparently, he cannot use the male washroom and (obviously) cannot use the female washroom.

    • hmschlpatriot

      Lol! The needs of other people. That’s hilarious. That’s a two-way street but apparently you are too blinded by the LGBT agenda to see it.

      • CJL

        Are you suggesting that (some) LGBT people are not considering other’s needs? Not serving people who are gay is not about anyone’s needs.
        What I suggested is that ways to meet everyone’s needs should be proposed. Do you have any ideas or just general insults for people with whom you disagree?

        • hmschlpatriot

          Sure I do. A business directory especially for gay consumers filled with all the businesses that want their money.

          • CJL

            That is a suggestion. Where I live, it is illegal to refuse service to people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, but I realize that you live in the USA so I don’t know what your laws are like.
            If discrimination of that type is allowed, that is a great suggestion!

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      Wonderfully typical example of a person who can’t do anything but speculate on the motives of another, doubts the cares and concerns of the author, and then not only impugn ones motives but resort to character assassination with statements such as your, “I think that he was running out of things to say to insult/undermine people speaking out against something he supports and things to say to stroke the egos of people who agree with him.”

      Also, Dr. Brown said nothing about the red Christmas cups. That was you reading through your biased filter.

      Finally, you don’t state whether you “profess to be a Christian” or not so I don’t know whether making a false accusation and bearing false witness against a Christian bothers you or not but it should. If you do profess to be a Christian, and I had to bet the farm on which one of you two would call Jesus “Lord” to His face and hear His words spoken in Matt. 7:23, I’d bet it won’t be Dr. Brown.

      If you’re not a Christian, well, that would explain your comments entirely.

      • CJL

        “But when it comes to offending Christians, Starbucks could care less, introducing “Holiday” cups last December in place of “Christmas” cups and trashing Christian sensitivities when they are in conflict with gay sensitivities.” Michael Brown
        What, Royce, did you think this was about? He is talking about when Starbucks used plain red cups last Christmas.
        I am a Christian, but I am literate and intelligent. I read and I think… often at the same time.
        You have, essentially, accused me of not being nice to Michael Brown. Imagine criticising a man who calls people hypocrites for standing up for what they believe in a context where it will make a difference? Imagine criticising a man for accusing Starbucks of abandoning Christmas cups for Holiday cups when they did no such thing? And him being a Christian! He should be above criticism! Even if he is less than honest and has a ridiculous opinion: that people who disagree with him shouldn’t be participating effectively in public issues unless they are participating in all the public issues (?).
        Your response to me was entirely a criticism of my person (other than the inaccuracy about the cups). I, therefore, am assuming that you actually have no concerns about criticising someone as long as you don’t agree with them. The difference between my criticism of Brown and your criticism of me is that you know nothing about me and I read Michael Brown’s opinions periodically and have a good grasp of where he comes from………. My comments were based on what he said while your comments were based on…. sorry, I don’t know where you got your ideas.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          This is what i thought it was about: “But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, not only does Starbucks operate all over this religiously-oppressive country, but the coffee giant completely capitulated to strict Islamic standards, removing the mermaid from its corporate logo.” You missed the point.

          The article is about Starbucks supporting Saudi Arabia and capitulating to them. But, as I said, your filter wouldn’t allow you to see that evidently.

          And then you prove my point again with your “Even if he is less than honest and has a ridiculous opinion”. Brown was not less than honest, I’ve not known him to be in ALL the articles I’ve read and videos I’ve watched. Even though I don’t agree with all he says I can’t say he’s less than honest. And his opinion in this article is NOT even close to being ridiculous. Which says more about your characterization of him and his opinion than anything.
          I have NO problem with you or anyone else “criticizing” Dr. Brown or me for that matter. But “I doubt that Michael Brown cares about the companies involvement in China and Saudi Arabia. I think that he was running out of things to say to insult/undermine people speaking out against something he supports…” is NOT “criticism”. That is exactly what I said it was. Impugning ones motives and character assassination. A “literate and intelligent” person ought to know that.

          I also made NO criticism against your person but rather, quite to the contrary, your actions. What you said. Again, a “literate and intelligent” person ought to know that.

          You say you’re a Christian but you apparently don’t have any problems with refusing to acknowledge that you’ve sinned against Dr. Brown. Which begs the question, “Why do you claim to be a Christian?”

  • Romeo Lavilla Jr.

    LGBT. Can’t we just go back to male or female? We were better off that way years ago. We were born that way. It was only when we started tinkering about it and putting our feelings and labelled it RESPECT did things become worse. Why did people not RESPECT God’s will of divinely bring us to this life as male or female? I wished that we can just go back eons ago…..like a computer gone awry…… we just have it reformatted and start again with default.

  • disqus_JtOl9TMmfD

    Good lord, no one hates Christians. You commenters are ignoring a LOT of context. The reason these businesses do this is because they know that boycotting states in the US could lead to actual change. As Americans, we should hold the US to a higher standard than other countries. Why would you compare us to Saudi Arabia or any other country?

    • You obviously know nothing about the founding of America, the bill of rights or the constitution to make this statement…please pick up a copy in your local bookstore & take the time to read it…otherwise do us all a favor & feel free to exit this great country at anytime & don’t let the door hit you in the a#! on the way out…

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        Who is the “you” that you refer to?

    • hmschlpatriot

      Good lord yes there are people who hate Christians. Do you live under a rock? I come across them on a daily basis online. It’s a sad state of affairs when businesses can dictate peoples’ moral beliefs.

      • acontraryview

        You can’t dictate to someone what their moral beliefs should be. People are free to choose their moral beliefs.

        • hmschlpatriot

          Yes they are free to choose them. But exercising them is a whole different ballgame.

  • CoffeeH

    Businesses, like Apple, ONLY care in the U.S. when they can score easy points and DO NOT care outside of the U.S.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Christians, if you give these companies your money, you are supporting their efforts.

  • harbidoll

    bUT- mermaids are halal according to Koran.” Everything in the sea, including mermaids are to be eaten!”

Inspiration
The Safest Hiding Place
Nancy Flory
More from The Stream
Connect with Us