Anti-God Starbucks cup has customer steaming

[Kanada Kev]

I love the fact that the comment was written by one of us pinko communist Canadians too

BIG BREWHAHA

Anti-God Starbucks cup has customer steaming

Woman says: 'I don't think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee'

Posted: May 6, 2007

2:07 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

An Ohio woman is steaming after reading an anti-God message published on the side of a Starbucks coffee cup.

The message that got Michelle Incanno's blood boiling reads:

"Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."

Michelle Incanno of Springboro, Ohio, holds a cup part of Starbucks' 'The Way I See It' campaign (Dayton Daily News)

The quote was written by Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, Canada, and was included as part of an effort by the Seattle-based coffee giant to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.

"As someone who loves God, I was so offended by that," Michelle Incanno, a married mother of three who is Catholic, told the Dayton Daily News. "I don't think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee."

(Story continues below)

Incanno of Springboro, Ohio, admits she had been a huge fan of Starbucks before discovering the message, always ordering a large, house-brewed coffee with nonfat milk and two Splenda.

"I wouldn't feel right going back," she said.

The paper says Incanno wasn't satisfied with a company disclaimer saying the quote is the author's opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks, which invites customers to respond on its website.

Starbucks spokeswoman Sanja Gould said the collection of thoughts and opinions is a "way to promote open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals. "

Starbucks cup with a pro-homosexual message caused controversy in Waco, Texas, in 2005 (courtesy: Seattle Times)

This is not the first time a message on a Starbucks cup has caused controversy.

As WND reported in September 2005, officials at Baylor University told the Starbucks store on its Waco, Texas, campus to remove a cup said to promote homosexuality.

The offending cup featured the words of homosexual novelist Armistead Maupin.

It read:

"My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short."

Baylor University, the world's largest Baptist school, refused to comment on the issue, said KCEN-TV in central Texas. Employees at the campus Starbucks said none of their customers had complained about the cup, but they removed it nonetheless.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

If Starbucks really meant this (the idea of stimulating conversation/debate/etc.), they might have had reusable paper cups - or something - that people could write on as graffiti in riposte. The bathroom stall had few other contenders as a forum for invigorated political discussions until the internet came along.

Otherwise, it just seems like a mildly clever but ill-fated marketing strategy.

[bradm]

Starbucks Coffee Clerk: Hi. Welcome to Starbucks. What can I get for you today?

Customer: I'll have a vente Columbian, skinny, with foam.

Starbucks Coffee Clerk: Anything else?

Customer: Uh, put some caramel syrup in that, too, and an almond biscotti.

Starbucks Coffee Clerk: Right. And the cup. Did you want reactionario, liberati, religissimo, philisophica, or humouria?

Customer: Oh, relgissimo, please.

Starbucks Coffee Clerk: Orthodoxia, or reformoria?

Customer: Reformia.

Starbucks Coffee Clerk: Right, skinny vente Columbian, with caramel syrup and foam, regligissimo/reformia cup, and an almond biscotti. That'll be $7.57.

Customer: Thanks.

Aloha,

Brad

[Kanada Kev]

LOL ... nice one Brad

[ollie]

Kinda dumb move on Starbucks part. I understand this woman's point of view -- I wouldn't want to purchase a cup of coffee that had the Lord's Prayer written on the side.

But then Starbucks is already annoying for so many reasons.

[Kanada Kev]

Personally, i don't feel threatened by the words on the cup. Some people freak out though. Next time, i would suggest to those offended, like the woman in the article, to simply ask for their money back and leave (or ask for a cup that they approve of). Mountain out of a molehill i tell ya.

What's next? People freaking about the colour of their cup? A burrista wearing a turban?

More time and effort should be made on breaking the Tim Hortons Rrrroll up the Rim to Lose contest conspiracy. Tim Hortons now in Afghanistan??? They must cutting their coffee with opium and fuelling the drug trade, and the terrorists!!!

Edited May 7, 2007 by Guest

[bradm]

the collection of thoughts and opinions is a "way to promote open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals."

Why, then, didn't they print cups with one thought/opinion on one side of the cup, and an opposing thought/opinion on the other?

Aloha,

Brad

[Kanada Kev]

"Penny for your thoughts ... $5.70 for your half-caff, low-fat, extra hot cappamochafuckachino"

[phishtaper]

since when is being right wrong? jeesh. i agree with starbucks. so, they lose a few fundie customers. big deal. i for one will gladly go in and have another fuchachino simply because they did print these two cups.

[Kanada Kev]

The "Ohio woman" has dropped her case

WWJD?

[guigsy]

if that woman would just spend a week in this city, im sure she'd be more sympathetic, and less offended, by the authors comments.

[Birdy]

Personally, i don't feel threatened by the words on the cup. Some people freak out though.

I suppose just as those right wing religious folk that seem to be the topic of so many threads in this forum don't feel threatened by the words that they preach. The "some people" you refer to above, to them is you.

Next time, i would suggest to those offended, like the woman in the article, to simply ask for their money back and leave (or ask for a cup that they approve of). Mountain out of a molehill i tell ya.

Right. I take it next time you're calling for secularization an appropriate response from the evangelicals could be to simply turn a blind eye? Mountain out of a molehill?

Where's the understanding?

[Kanada Kev]

Personally' date=' i don't feel threatened by the words on the cup. Some people freak out though.

[/quote']

I suppose just as those right wing religious folk that seem to be the topic of so many threads in this forum don't feel threatened by the words that they preach. The "some people" you refer to above, to them is you.

No, not exactly true. I never feel threatened by the words of religious texts. Any threatening action comes from those who utilize those words in a way that makes them, as individuals not words, threaten me. If i'm handed a religious flyer walking down Yonge St it doesn't bother me. I have the choice to read it or not, ignore it, or throw it out (or recycle it). If, however, the person handing it to me starts to tell me that the subject matter of the pamphlet is proof that I am living a horrible life and that i'm damned to an eternity of pain and suffering if I don't change my ways, then it's a problem. It's the person. I don't think that the burristas at Starbucks are preaching the messages on the cups to the customers as they hand them to them.

Next time' date=' i would suggest to those offended, like the woman in the article, to simply ask for their money back and leave (or ask for a cup that they approve of). Mountain out of a molehill i tell ya.

[/quote']

Right. I take it next time you're calling for secularization an appropriate response from the evangelicals could be to simply turn a blind eye? Mountain out of a molehill?

That's not the same thing. If I was in a store and they handed my my purchased goods in a bag that had a big picture of Jesus and it said "follow HIM or die in Hell" and it offended me, i'd request my money back and return it all. I wouldn't file a lawsuit since it was a private establishment and it's not material that can be deemed hate publications.

Your question about secularization is completely different, IMHO. When evangelicals are attempting to erase the line between church and State I won't turn a blind eye. If I was standing in front of a church spouting off about how I don't believe in what was being preached inside their private sanctuary and handing out flyers then YES, by all means they should turn a blind eye.

Where's the understanding?

Trust me, I am a very understanding person. I'm the last one you'd see launch a volley of attacks at an individual before hearing what they had to say and making a rational decision from there.

The validity of the woman from Ohio's argument is weak, IMHO. How can that cup have caused her that much damage and harm? It was a quotation from an individual. I guess she's equally offended everytime she is forced to read the 'letters to the editor' in a newspaper too, when they may say something she doesn't like. Might as well launch a suit against the paper?

Birdy, i'm all for everyone getting along. I know this may be some utopian pipe dream. It's silly situations that arise like this one (and that the media love since it gets people fired up) that slow down any sort of progress towards common understandings and living together as different people in the same world.

[phishtaper]

maybe im just too closed-minded but really, what's so "offensive" about simply saying think for yourself. and as for the pro-gay cup, well, if someone is offended by that today, then they are just plain stupid.

the whole thing reminds me of that old joke about people in a burning building (or on a sinking ship or whatever) and how a fireman comes along and says, "come with me lady" and she says, "no, god will save me." and then another fireman comes along and says "hey lady, come with me" and again she says, "no, god will save me." and of course she burns to death and when she gets to heaven she asks god why he didnt save her and she says "honey, i sent two firemen, what more do you want?"

like famous players a few years ago, with their pre-film, pro-gay-marriage vignettes, I applaud corporations that take socially progressive stances.

and yes, my Starbucks low-fat, duppio, caramel fuchachinno yesterday was delish!

[Birdy]

Starbucks is a nightmare and hardly progressive, if you're to get all worldly.

Kev, sorry. Just thinking that if Tim Horton's was to start dishing out lines on their cups about sinning and redemption and burning in eternal hell, there would be a serious exchange of dialogue in this forum and Canada over would be calling for those cups to be burnt.

I guess it boils down to what's socially acceptable but unfortunately socially acceptable behaviour still has the power to alienate and belittle.

[phishtaper]

Starbucks is a nightmare and hardly progressive, if you're to get all worldly.

what do you mean?

[Birdy]

They’ve destroyed competition and obliterated small businesses in major cities, they buy their beans grown on lands that have been clearcut , that are under exploitative labor conditions, putting plantations out of business and providing a crappier bean for us to consume, they make all of their employees sign a contract that they won’t publically say anything negative about the company, they refuse human rights monitors the chance to verify that they are not exploiting 3rd world countries, they charge you upwards of 4 f'ing dollars for a bloody coffee and make you think that their burnt beans are delish!

The list really does go on. Starbucks is a nightmare and hardly progressive, whatever way you look at it. But enjoy your coffee and your instruction to 'think for yourself'. Jokes!

Edited May 10, 2007 by Guest

[phorbesie]

i love starbucks coffee, hate the stupid sayings on the cups, and hate that they only give 'take-away' cups unless you specifically ask for china (which they then scurry around to find one or wash).

not that any of this matters, just felt like saying

[Kanada Kev]

Starbucks is a nightmare and hardly progressive, if you're to get all worldly.

Kev, sorry. Just thinking that if Tim Horton's was to start dishing out lines on their cups about sinning and redemption and burning in eternal hell, there would be a serious exchange of dialogue in this forum and Canada over would be calling for those cups to be burnt.

I guess it boils down to what's socially acceptable but unfortunately socially acceptable behaviour still has the power to alienate and belittle.

I see where you are coming from Birdy. I still hold the view that whether it be Starbucks, Tim Hortons, McDonalds, Winners, (insert any private retailer here) that it is that individual company's choice to put that on their product. They do so knowing full well what to expect from their clientele and the general public. If they want to risk the loss of customers, so be it. If they feel that it will generate a "buzz" or publicity, it can be deemed clever marketing. They make their bed, they lay in it. As long as it doesn't constitute a HATE CRIME then it's fair game. Other than that, those offended can choose not to support those businesses that offend them for whatever reason.

Personally, i'd laugh if somebody would print up coffee cups with "black juice from hell" on it ... but that might offend the Ohio woman as well.

[phishtaper]

But enjoy your coffee and your instruction to 'think for yourself'.

Oh, I do. And I particularly enjoy knowing that my extravagant lifestyle directly contributes to the blisters on the fingers of poor, young, starving, soon-to-be-villageless children in developing countries that I dont give a damn about. hmmmm, ive visited ihatestarbucks.com too, and a lot of what's there is little more than hype. just thinking for myself.

[Birdy]

well, isn't that awesome. Where's the purple font on the quick replies?

please tell me your wink indicates that you are kidding. if not, then you're a big fat loser, in the kindest of you're my internet friend ways.

i'm nowhere near perfect and unfortunately do contribute to the blisters of poor, young, starving, soon-to-be-villageless children in developing countries, but i'm trying daily to be more concious about what I can do to better certain predicaments.. acknowledging the fair trade movement is one of them and encouraging corporations to acknowledge and take part in the fair trade movement is another of them. Unlike you, i do give a damn.

I've never visited ihatestarbucks.com, but I do commend you on your googling abilities.

I'm sorry, but your post above makes me want to vomit. Way to exploit your fellow man and feel good about it. Yuck.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm feeling way too stroppy right now to weigh in on this thread.

Just wanted to get that out. Carry on .

[ollie]

I love it when I agree with Birdy.

[phishtaper]

well, just so this goes no further ... i was being sarcastic. I assumed that was more than clear, but it appears I was wrong about that. in fact, i do not mean harm to children and i do not wish villages to be obliterated. and preemptively, I do not kill puppies for fun and I have never mugged anyone’s grandmother either. it troubles me that anyone could actually believe otherwise. but, oh well …

on the charges leveled against starbucks: most are unfounded. the company is consistently included in many ethical investment funds because it contributes a significant proportion of its profits to local endeavors in developing countries (ie., water purification, child health, establishing grower co-ops) and was once again listed among the top 100 ethical companies in the world by Ethisphere this week. It is the single biggest purchaser in North America of internationally grown fair trade coffee beans, and is designated as a world leader by most fair trade organizations (although understandably, they call on Starbucks to continue to do more). It was Starbucks that brought fair trade coffee to the masses more than ten years ago. It provides health, and stock purchase, benefits to part-time and full-time employees (and some of my friends have benefited very well from this) and has explicit diversity policies in hiring and promoting. And it is recognized as a supporter by a number of NGOs like Oxfam, Save the Children and Unicef.

while it is all too tempting to criticize the company for all sorts of things - probably because it is big, successful, ubiquitous, slick and expensive - the evidence simply does not support most of the claims made. The only two legitimate charges are that it practices predatory locationing, and often sets-up near existing, local owned cafés, and; that it has engaged in anti-union activities. On point one, Starbucks is nothing like Walmart in that it does not strategically locate stores near existing local stores and undercut their prices, driving them out of business. Far from it. Starbucks charges considerably more for coffee than most local Mom and Pop cafés. Clearly, however, customers are willing to pay more to buy its coffee. Mom and Pop cafés can still complete, and many do, but they need to adjust. The anti-union activities, however, are quite troubling. While still generally paid higher than others in similar positions, Starbucks employees want more and have been prevented from unionizing. As for the charge that Starbucks serves burnt coffee, well, that’s just a matter of subjective opinion and clearly, millions of people every day like the taste (and pay extra for it).

so, yes, I was being completely sarcastic, and I do apologize if that was not understood by everyone here. But the bottom line is that most of the charges levels were unfounded. And as much as the anti-Starbucks movement would like people to believe that buying products there results in villageless, blistered children, that’s simple not true. Not true at all. Obviously, my sarcastic way of making that point was lost. My intention was to challenge unfounded charges, not to induce vomiting.

ps, “3rd world†is a pejorative term that hasn’t been used in the international community for years. There are “developedâ€, “developing†and “under-developed†countries.

[Asparagus]

well, just so this goes no further ... i was being sarcastic. I assumed that was more than clear, but it appears I was wrong about that. in fact, i do not mean harm to children and i do not wish villages to be obliterated. and preemptively, I do not kill puppies for fun and I have never mugged anyone’s grandmother either. it troubles me that anyone could actually believe otherwise. but, oh well …

on the charges leveled against starbucks: most are unfounded. the company is consistently included in many ethical investment funds because it contributes a significant proportion of its profits to local endeavors in developing countries (ie., water purification, child health, establishing grower co-ops) and was once again listed among the top 100 ethical companies in the world by Ethisphere this week. It is the single biggest purchaser in North America of internationally grown fair trade coffee beans, and is designated as a world leader by most fair trade organizations (although understandably, they call on Starbucks to continue to do more). It was Starbucks that brought fair trade coffee to the masses more than ten years ago. It provides health, and stock purchase, benefits to part-time and full-time employees (and some of my friends have benefited very well from this) and has explicit diversity policies in hiring and promoting. And it is recognized as a supporter by a number of NGOs like Oxfam, Save the Children and Unicef.

while it is all too tempting to criticize the company for all sorts of things - probably because it is big, successful, ubiquitous, slick and expensive - the evidence simply does not support most of the claims made. The only two legitimate charges are that it practices predatory locationing, and often sets-up near existing, local owned cafés, and; that it has engaged in anti-union activities. On point one, Starbucks is nothing like Walmart in that it does not strategically locate stores near existing local stores and undercut their prices, driving them out of business. Far from it. Starbucks charges considerably more for coffee than most local Mom and Pop cafés. Clearly, however, customers are willing to pay more to buy its coffee. Mom and Pop cafés can still complete, and many do, but they need to adjust. The anti-union activities, however, are quite troubling. While still generally paid higher than others in similar positions, Starbucks employees want more and have been prevented from unionizing. As for the charge that Starbucks serves burnt coffee, well, that’s just a matter of subjective opinion and clearly, millions of people every day like the taste (and pay extra for it).

so, yes, I was being completely sarcastic, and I do apologize if that was not understood by everyone here. But the bottom line is that most of the charges levels were unfounded. And as much as the anti-Starbucks movement would like people to believe that buying products there results in villageless, blistered children, that’s simple not true. Not true at all. Obviously, my sarcastic way of making that point was lost. My intention was to challenge unfounded charges, not to induce vomiting.

ps, “3rd world†is a pejorative term that hasn’t been used in the international community for years. There are “developedâ€, “developing†and “under-developed†countries.

Could you please provide some links for this information? I noticed that Starbucks is indeed on the list of most ethical companies for 2007, as rated by Ethisphere, right under McDonald's. I also noticed that GE and Royal-Dutch Shell are on the list.