Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, October 23, 2009

Starbucks Says Approve R-71

Posted by on Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Seattle-based caffeine cartel Starbucks gave its blessing this week to approve Referendum 71, thereby recognizing that gay couples deserve the same morning coffee rights as their groggy, heterosexual counterparts. In a statement, the company said that approving R-71 "ensures that basic benefits and important protections are not taken away from committed couples, so they are able to take care of each other, especially in times of crisis." Starbucks wants voters to approve the measure "because it is aligned with our business practices, providing domestic partner benefits, and one of our core values of treating people with respect and dignity.”

Bravo, Starbucks.

It's hard to say how much impact the endorsement has, as the company didn't donate to the Approve R-71 campaign. But a spokeswoman—who said she couldn't be named or CEO Howard Schultz would force her to drink sweet tea for a week—said the company did notify its "partners" (employees) through its "internal partner portal" (website) about the endorsement. The company has 3,000 employees in its Seattle headquarters and maintains 667 stores in Washington state. Needless to say, that's a big chunk of voters. "That is just as valuable as when an organization communicates its endorsement to members," says Approve R-71 campaign manager Josh Friedes. "We are just delighted to have their endorsement along with Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, and many other companies that employ large numbers of people in the Pacific Northwest."


Comments (36) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
While you're hopped up on doppios, do a double YES

YES on R-71
YES on I-1033

Freedom to marry
Freedom from taxation

The 2...2...Freedoms in 1 !
Posted by 2-in-1 Oil on October 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM · Report this
Isn't Starbucks bankrupt?
Maybe they can't afford to subsidize the homosexual lifestyle but haven't figured it out yet...
Posted by Chapter 11 on October 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 3
Your pessimist here:

Anti-gay bigotry accounts for at least 5-10 percentage points that you MUST overcome.

Colorado didn't do it in 1992 and couldn't do it again in 2006.

Washington State's demos are hauntingly similar to Colorado's.

Oh, I hope I'm so very wrong!
Posted by Mark in Colorado on October 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM · Report this
Baconcat 4
@3: No, you're hoping you're right.
Posted by Baconcat on October 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM · Report this
Can't wait to see how the indie coffee snobs turn this into a bad thing somehow.
Posted by Etherite on October 23, 2009 at 5:57 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 6
About time.

Still buying the Yes on 71 cookies from indie bakeries instead.
Posted by Will in Seattle on October 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM · Report this
Mark - that is why we are working so hard.

Could be close.

Vote, talk to friends and net works, and send money.

Posted by Zorn on October 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM · Report this

Because of budget problems, Seattle Public Schools had an external hiring ban all summer, and I know they still haven't filled every position (you can look on their job boards), even though they have finally opened up their jobs to both internal and external applicants.

As population increases, it is likely student populations will increase as well. As inflation goes up, so will the cost of materials, teacher salaries, etc.

How are the Seattle Public Schools supposed to achieve adequate funding, something they have been unable to do due to the cutbacks during this recession, if you lock in their budget forever?

Posted by make dir on October 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 9

Here's to hoping I never, ever meet you.

I visit my adopted home (i.e., Washington State--specifically Seattle) every year.

I'm not hoping otherwise as you so believe that I would do.

I want Washington to FUCK Colorado. I want Washington to tell my birth state that "you are LOSERS."

So until you know me, don't pretend you do.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on October 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM · Report this
Baconcat 10
@9: My great-grandmother always says (much more quietly nowadays, being in her nineties) that anyone who says they're hoping they are wrong is lying. That line is and has always been cover for defeatism.

You use a skewed statistic, piss in the punch, then say "oh, but I hope I'm wrong". Writing a narrative so you can come back and excoriate whomever for whatever they said that rubbed you wrong. For example, in the odd chance that R-71 is rejected, you'll come back and say "SEE BACON PUSSY, YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO ME" as though your downerism had any bearing on the outcome of this election.

Defeatism, however, has never been a worthwhile use of one's time, especially in politics.

Moreover, if you meet me, what are you going to do? I've stood up to people more intimidating than you could ever imagine yourself to be, and I have a feeling, given your "statistics", that you aren't quite as tough as you would imagine yourself to be.

Especially if you call yourself a loser.
Posted by Baconcat on October 23, 2009 at 7:33 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 11
Really? In deference to your great-grandma.

Baconcat. You don't know me.

You postulate on many things I've said before on Slog.

Yes, I'm human and I say stupid and many times impulsively STUPID things.

But please know this--I love Washington. I love Seattle.

I really do want you, Seattle, and the state of Washington to make me embarrassed of where I come from.

For whatever reason, you don't believe me.

I'm so sorry for that.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on October 23, 2009 at 7:48 PM · Report this
Alcon Blackhawk 12
@10 - Anyone who thinks that you can't hope you're wrong has not worked long in politics. Back in '97 or whatever (before my time), when the gay rights initiative was evidently screwed, you think everyone fighting for that thought their 20 point deficit would magically disappear?

There are plenty of pessimists working their asses off on this campaign.
Posted by Alcon Blackhawk on October 23, 2009 at 8:10 PM · Report this
kim in portland 13
Bravo, Starbucks.
Posted by kim in portland on October 23, 2009 at 8:16 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 14
@ 11, you've got issues. Amendment 2 passed by a significant margin. The 2006 referendum and amendment lost by a narrow margin. The story that tells is that the tide is turning here, just as it is everywhere.

Keep in mind that if California can still pass bigoted propositions, then Colorado ain't so bad.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 23, 2009 at 8:29 PM · Report this
pissy mcslogbot 15
YES!!! Bravo, Starbuck. oh and bully for you Captain Apollo, Huzzah Commander Adama.

but screw you #6 and Dr. Baltar.
Posted by pissy mcslogbot on October 23, 2009 at 8:51 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 16
@14 Matt from Denver (aka LOSER)

I don't know your history or place. And I don't care to.

So let's look at the results from Colorado, shall we:

Referendum I [2006] (grants the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples):
DEFEATED 53% against, 47% for

(6 percentage points difference)

Amendment 43 [2006] (bans same-sex marriage):
APPROVED 55% for, 45% against

(10 percentage points difference)

Amendment 2 [1992] (codifies discrimination against gays and lesbians in all public accomodations)
53% for 47% against

(6 percentage points difference)

[Amendment 2 Side note: the polls days before the election said that Amendment 2 would fail by 10 percentage points] [What happened?] [Answer: Likely voters lied to pollsters.]

Matt from Denver -- COME ON DOWN!!! You're the next contestant on the Stupid Are Right!!! Woo!! Hoo!!

I have to revise my projections to actually mean that if you want to defeat anti-gay and lesbian bigotry, then it MUST be between 6 and 10 percentage points, NOT 5 and 10 percentage points.

Matt from Denver--You're a huge embarrassment.

AND NOW Matt from Denver, You can just GO AWAY!
Posted by Mark in Colorado on October 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM · Report this

>>As inflation goes up

I-1033 simply indexes taxes to inflation.

>>if you lock in their budget forever?

This is the fallacy of I-1033 opponents.

I-1033 say YOU CAN raise taxes in sync with inflation.

As far as saying I-1033 will force us to cut this or that -- well, yes, we ALWAYS cut something or add something each year. That is called budgeting.

I-1033 says that you can have a, or b or both if you can afford it, but if not, you can't run a deficit or add new taxes.

Now, the opponents of course will say "yes but that means we will have to cut education for severely disabled children".

No, it means you can prevent the continued increase in 6 figure salaries for administrators and bureaucrats.

And in I-1033 you can raise taxes in excess of inflation -- but it has to occur with VOTER APPROVAL. At any time a referendum can be put to voters -- for more light rail, for education, for special needs -- for the people to directly raise taxes.

What I-1033 does away with are the behind the scene machinations and special fees, hidden taxes or "creeping taxes" (0.01 sales tax increase here, 0.01 increase there).

I-1033 also says that surpluses are returned to the people in the form of property tax rebates.

Opponents say that "well Bill Gates will get more money than me". Maybe. Or maybe your landlord and his competition will be rebates and they'll pass some of the savings on to you.

So, to me, the average person is simply getting lawmakers to make decisions and not increase taxes with each and every new addition.
Posted by Tomas Payne on October 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 18
Here's a bit of trivia.

What well known sit-com based itself in Seattle as a result of Amendment 2 in Colorado?

Yes, the show was supposed to be based in Denver.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on October 23, 2009 at 10:33 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 19
Hey Mark,

Grow up. You did absolutely zero to show that you don't have issues, my mention of which I'm sure is why you're being so nasty. So again, grow up.


Matt from Denver, a veteran slogger

PS - I'll give you credit for the Amendment 2 results, but keep in mind an important fact: 47 % is only 3 % under 50. That's actually a close margin given how many people actually were needed to pass Ref I.

You can be pessimistic if you like. I'm hopeful for the future, and I'm cautiously optimistic about R-71 because it's about general civil rights, not marriage equality. It's not 1992 (a year in which any state would have passed Amendment 2, and I do mean any state).
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 23, 2009 at 10:53 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 20
Okay. Nighty-nite Matt.

Drink some hot chocolate before you go beddy-bye.

Sweet dreams sweetie-pie.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on October 23, 2009 at 11:05 PM · Report this
Bill W. 21
I am a total pessimist. People never asked questions about Prop 8. People continued to send money to the tune of tens of millions and it failed. Monday morning quarterbacks complained why didn’t we do this or that as everyone sat on their hands so Obama would get elected. Millions was spent on Obama GOTV as Dem’s convinced us, that was the best use of money. We have the benefit of vote by mail in King County. This will hopefully make the difference. Typically, 30% would show up in off-year election on a blustery day in November. What would the outcome be then? The power lies in Seattle area GOTV. You have less than two weeks. So get on it!
Posted by Bill W. on October 23, 2009 at 11:05 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 22
You too, Marky Mark. xoxox lol
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 23, 2009 at 11:07 PM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 23
So anyway, yeah, that's pretty cool about Starbucks, whatever else.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on October 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 24
Lookit you drama queens, win or lose no silly dizzy homo queen is goin anywhere cept maybe to get her nails done (I know I am). This is not the end. So just keep that pretty powdered nose to that pretty grey grindstone and some time in the future we'll show up at your pretty little princes (someday to be queen) wedding. You'll know me, I'll be the one with the perfect nails.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 24, 2009 at 12:23 AM · Report this
MeeeeYOWWWWW!!!! RARRRR!!! Hssss!!!...
Saucer of milk... table for... how many, three? Four?
Such DRAMA...

Nice fucking show of solidarity, guys. Classic.
Posted by Peace. Chill. Vote already. on October 24, 2009 at 12:53 AM · Report this
Baconcat 26

There are plenty of pessimists working their asses off on this campaign.

That explains a lot.
Posted by Baconcat on October 24, 2009 at 1:07 AM · Report this
@26: no, no it doesn't.
Posted by YTAH on October 24, 2009 at 1:56 AM · Report this

Some people have the mistaken notion that if you are registered you are not a troll.
The biggest
suck-the-life-out-of-the-Slog Assholes are registered.
Posted by Billy Goat Gruff on October 24, 2009 at 3:24 AM · Report this
Starbucks is just jumping on a convenient bandwagon. With declining sales they hope that supporting R71 will encourage more of the gay community to support Starbucks by utilizing their stores more frequently. It is little more than a cynical ploy to boost sales - we support you, you support us!

As for the core values that Starbucks espouse - talk to most employees and they will tell you that there is very little respect and dignity show towards them by the company. The real policy is do as we tell you, don't question it, just do it or go work somewhere else. In part this is why the company plummeted on the Forbes list of "best places to work".

Don't fall the cynical marketing ploy which is all Starbucks is doing here in supporting R-71. If it were anything other, then why would the so called spokesperson decline to be named?
Posted by Hard Opinion on October 24, 2009 at 6:10 AM · Report this

Save the right/wrong coffee story for later - make sure you vote and for this State it is a giant endorsement.

Winning in politics is always a bed full of unlikely people.

VOTE, no matter yur coffee choice.
Posted by Coffee Guy on October 24, 2009 at 8:02 AM · Report this
Stewie Griffin 31
I agree, who cares about Starbucks' endorsement anyway. Screw their coffee and frankly they should leave Seattle and take their high paying corporate jobs with them! Hell, that includes Microsoft and Boeing too!! Get the hell out of Seattle all of you!! We don't need you any more!!!

(really, can the anti-corporate hippster crowd be any more stupid?)
Posted by Stewie Griffin on October 24, 2009 at 9:18 AM · Report this
@ 28, rest assured that ALL unregistered commenters are trolls.
Posted by Don't be a hypocrite. on October 24, 2009 at 10:55 AM · Report this
Carollani 33
They had better give that endorsement, nearly half of their "partners" are total homos.
Posted by Carollani on October 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM · Report this
@ 32, speak for yourself.
Posted by Don't be an asshole. on October 25, 2009 at 5:16 AM · Report this
@ 34, get a sense of humor.
Posted by takes one to know one on October 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM · Report this
35 Wha hahahahahahaha !!!
Posted by dueling trolls on October 25, 2009 at 3:34 PM · Report this

Add a comment


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy