Starbucks Doesn't Hate Christmas
It's the age old question: Does one group's rights supersede another group's rights? In terms of gay rights it was decided that Kim Davis had to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, despite her religious objections. Now though another group, well truly just one man at the moment, is angry with Starbucks. They claim that the coffee shop giant is waging a "war on Christmas".
How are they doing this? Well instead of having the normal decorations on their cups, they decided to go with plain red cups with their logo on them. Joshua Feuerstein claims in a Facebook video that “Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus,” This of course has led to many people saying that they are done with Pumpkin Spice Lattes. Others have declared that this is a war on Christianity and they won't stand for it.
Here's the rub though. Maybe if the Feuerstein had taken a second to think about this logically, he would have maybe Starbucks has a different reason for going with a plain red cup. First up, has anyone considered that it costs money to decorate cups? By keeping that cost down, they wouldn't have to raise their prices and deal with the outcry of that move. Or does cost only occur to the Far Right when it comes to raising minimum wage? Of course they claim that this is a First Amendment issue but it's not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a business must decorate their cups with Christmas Trees, unless of course I missed that lesson in Constitutional Law.
If they want to argue their Freedom of Religion right, then the question has to be asked: What about the baristas? Feuerstein says in the video that it makes him mad that they don't say "Merry Christmas". So let's the barista is Jewish, why should they be forced to say something they don't believe in? Just to appease a few customers? That's not fair to them and violates their rights. And according to the Supreme Court Decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, Starbucks isn't required to do anything that violates their religious beliefs. "…that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can ‘opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.’” Yep Starbucks has done nothing wrong and this controversy is one desperate man's way of getting attention.
In case you don't think that's true, consider this: At the end of the video he waves a gun around. Then makes the jump that Starbucks is anti-Second Amendment and says he walked into the store with his gun. Because the best way to rally the troops around some dumb initiative is to throw in as much controversy as possible. If the Christmas thing didn't work out, then he would have nailed it with the gun. Sigh. When will people start thinking for themselves? And when will logic kick in?