Connect with us

“Starbucks Hates God” Boycott Failed, So Now Google Hates God Too

Published

on

The man who is leading the charge against Starbucks’ support of same-sex marriage equality now has added Google and Amazon to his list. Pastor Steven Andrew, who heads the anti-gay group USA Christian Ministries, initially began his boycott of Starbucks after approximately 100 businesses large and small joined Washington United for Marriage’s Business Coalition in support of same-sex marriage equality. That list includes Starbucks, Google, and Amazon, but also other big corporate names like Microsoft, Nike, Alcoa, and Real Networks.

As many have pondered, why did Pastor Andrew pick on Starbucks? The simple answer is because they’re easy. People are willing to give up a cup of coffee at Starbucks and drive to a local coffee house or a Dunkin Donuts, and feel like they’ve made a statement. It costs them nothing (actually, they save a few pennies) and they can feel like they’ve contributed to a cause.

But why didn’t Pastor Andrew demand Christians boycott Google and Amazon? That’s harder to get people to do. And it shows his Starbucks boycott isn’t working. Also, he lost. Washington has signed marriage equality into law.

Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch reports Pastor Andrew says these companies are “working against Jesus and leading people to sin and to possibly go to hell,” and notes the Pastor “previously claimed that ‘Starbucks hates God‘ over the company’s backing of gay rights.” He quotes the Christian Post:

Andrew is currently involved in a boycott against Starbucks after the coffee company began supporting a gay marriage bill proposed in Washington State. He recently added a few others to the list as well, including Nike, Google, Microsoft and Amazon, asking Christians to no longer provide business to those corporations, which he claimed promoted homosexual sin.

For Andrew, his nonviolent protests did have a “biblical warrant.” “Boycotting anti-God companies is one way a Christian lives out the First Commandment,” the author of Making a Strong Christian Nation, told The Christian Post. “If you love Jesus, you won’t give your money to those working against Jesus, our Savior.”

He believed that if the stores in Sodom and Gomorrah that openly mocked God were boycotted, they could have possibly been saved. “God calls Christians and churches to not share in the sins of others. To love God is to flee sexual immorality. If we help the wicked, then God’s Word says God judges us (2 Chronicles 19:2). God calls Christians to 100 percent love Him and to 100 percent oppose sin.”

God also called the United States to have the fear of God as a nation, but complacency with sin did not indicate fear of God, Andrew asserted.

“Ungodly politicians, Starbucks, Nike, Amazon and others are doing the devil’s work … trying to ‘change’ our Christian laws into non-Christian laws … Every Christian and church should boycott companies making light of Jesus Christ. It is unwise for a Christian to give their money to those working against Jesus and leading people to sin and to possibly go to hell.”

You’ll remember possible FEC investigation candidate Bob Vander Plaats recorded a boycott Starbucks video and made false statements attributing them to Starbucks a few weeks ago. His video got pulled from YouTube faster than you can say “we’ll sue you for slander.”

Alas, God apparently doesn’t use the same lawyers.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Susan Collins Doesn’t Regret Kavanaugh Vote After Roe Repeal: ‘Didn’t Impact Maine’

Published

on

Republican Sen. Susan Collins said she does not regret her tie-breaking vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, even after the Supreme Court voted to reverse Roe v. Wade, ending the right to an abortion at the federal level. She said that the decision did not affect her state.

Speaking to reporter Randy Billings fo the Portland Press Herald, Collins said that she disagreed with the Roe decision, but pointed out that she also supported Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who all dissented from the decision.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed in that decision, which turned abortion issues back to the states. It has not had an impact on the state of Maine in that name actually expanded its law,” Collins said, according to WCSH-TV.

READ MORE: ‘She Knew What Brett Kavanaugh Was Going to Do’: Morning Joe Calls Out Susan Collins Over Abortion Ruling

In explaining her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, she said “When I look at a justice, I look at their qualifications, their integrity, their background, their experience in reaching a decision.” During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, he dodged questions from senators on whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade calling it “settled law.”

“One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” Kavanaugh said at the time.

When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over a 2003 email he wrote where he said he was “not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level,” Kavanaugh said he was merely referring to the positions of such scholars.

“But the broader point was simply that I think it was overstating something about legal scholars. And I am always concerned with accuracy, and I thought that was not quite accurate description of legal, all legal scholars because it referred to ‘all,'” he said. “To your point, your broader point, Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times… That makes Casey precedent on precedent. It has been relied on. Casey itself has been cited as authority in subsequent cases such as Glucksberg and other cases. So that precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about stare decisis in this context.”

Following the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe, Collins admitted that the decision was “completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing also hinged on accusations of sexual assault. Christine Blasey Ford testified before Congress that Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her while they were in high school, allegations Kavanaugh denies. During the hearings, sexual assault survivors met with Republican senators Collins and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, urging them not to confirm, according to Time magazine.

Murkowski ultimately was the lone Republican vote against confirming Kavanaugh.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Josh Hawley Slams Baseball League for Punishing Players Over Anti-Pride Night Demonstration

Published

on

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) accused Major League Baseball of a “pattern of discrimination” after the league punished three players for their protest during a recent Pride Night celebration.

Hawley released the letter Tuesday afternoon following MLB issuing three San Francisco Giants pitchers for writing references to the Bible on their hats, a special Pride Night variant of the standard Giants hat featuring a rainbow version of the team logo.

“I write with grave concern over your reported decision to issue a formal warning to three Major League Baseball (MLB) players for publicly expressing their Christian faith. This follows a high-profile undercover investigation that revealed at least one MLB team discriminated against a player based on his Catholic faith. You must answer for what appears to be a pattern of discrimination within MLB against baseball players who profess their Christian faith,” Hawley wrote.

READ MORE: Baseball Commissioner Says Pride Jerseys Make Some Players ‘Uncomfortable’

Hawley was not the only Republican politician to condemn the MLB. Vice President JD Vance tweeted “Trump won we don’t have to do this anymore,” alongside a retweet of Sports Illustrated’s coverage of the warning. Rep. Nancy Mace from South Carolina wrote “So it’s okay when they’re forced into wearing pride hats for social propaganda, but Bible verses are an issue?” Mace made a name for herself attacking the first transgender representative Sarah McBride (D-DE), and recently came in fifth in her district’s primary election.

Pitcher Landen Roupp wrote Gen 9:12-16 on his cap next to the rainbow logo. Two relief pitchers, JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker, wrote similar references to the same Bible verse on their hats. The verse refers to the rainbow symbolizing the covenant between God and all creatures that he would not flood the earth again, however many anti-LGBTQ Christians have used the verse to accuse the queer community of co-opting the rainbow symbol.

MLB says that the warning came not over the content or meaning of the messages, but instead was a violation of the league’s rules about uniform integrity.

“To be clear, this routine verbal warning not to wear the hat in future games is not disciplinary and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message,” the league said in a follow. “We respect players’ right to free expression. However, writing of any kind, with any message, is prohibited per Major League Baseball’s uniform regulations which provides in part that, ‘(a) player may not write, attach, affix, embroider or otherwise display nicknames or messages on apparel or playing equipment,'” MLB said in a statement, according to the New York Times, adding that similar warnings had been issued to players who wrote the names of family members on uniforms.

Another relief pitcher, Sam Hentges, wore the standard version of the Giants hat. He did not receive any warning from MLB.

The Giants have a long history of supporting the LGBTQ community. It was the first team to wear rainbow versions of its logo during Pride games. It was also the first team to raise money for HIV/AIDS research in 1994.

The team apologized for the pitchers’ protest, sending a statement to the San Francisco Standard, that  it was “proud to support Pride Night and the LGBTQ+ community.”

“Baseball should be a place where everyone feels welcome, respected, and valued. We also respect that individuals may make personal choices about participating in team activations. We understand that the choices by individual players have caused pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community and we are sorry for that.  Those choices do not change our organization’s commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all. We remain grateful to our fans, partners, employees, players, and coaches who help make Pride Night a meaningful celebration.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

White House Retweets McDonald’s Advertisement, Appears to Take Credit for Bringing Back Apple Pie

Published

on

Trump McDonalds

The White House used its X account to repost a McDonald’s advertisement alongside a photo of President Donald Trump with three bags of fast food.

On Tuesday, shortly after noon on the East Coast, the official White House X account retweeted a post from the fast food giant advertising that it was bringing back the fried apple pie next week. The White House attached the photo of Trump posing in the Oval Office with bags of food.

Making America Great Again for real,” it tweeted, alongside the eyes “looking” emoji, appearing as if the president was taking credit for the product’s return. 

While Trump has frequently shared his affinity for McDonald’s products, this is perhaps the closest the White House has come to an actual commercial endorsement for the brand. Recently he had McDonald’s food delivered to the White House by DoorDash as another photo opportunity, but it was officially to promote his “no tax on tips” policy, rather than the companies themselves.

READ MORE: McDonald’s Tweets to Donald Trump: ‘You Are Actually a Disgusting Excuse of a President’

Previous presidents have refrained from using the position to promote a product like this. Trump is an exception; while most of the time his product promotions have been for his own branded products like the Trump Bible, he has occasionally expanded his presidential endorsement to other products.

His daughter Ivanka posed with Goya black beans after the company’s CEO praised Trump in 2020. Trump himself then took a photo posted to Instagram of himself posing with various Goya products in the Oval Office.

Last year, Trump promoted Elon Musk’s car company Tesla by staging a photo op with a number of Teslas parked on the South Lawn of the White House. CNN’s Brianna Keller pointed out at the time that former President Joe Biden similarly had automobiles parked on the White House lawn for a photo op. In that case, however, it was as part of an “Electric Vehicle Summit,” and featured executives from multiple car manufacturers, rather than an endorsement of a single company.

Legally, those holding public office are barred from endorsing products, services or enterprise. Presidents prior to Trump were expected to divest themselves of their businesses; former president Jimmy Carter famously divested himself from his peanut farm upon taking office.

Carter put his farm into a blind trust, where the trustees have full discretion and beneficiaries have no control over the trust nor receive any reports. However, during his first term, Trump put his assets in a trust controlled by his sons and an additional executive, according to the Washington Post. After being elected to a second term, he has again put his assets in a similar arrangement, according to the Hill.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.