No. I support Starbucks decision, but there's no way I'm going to give them money for that twice-burned sludge they charitably call "coffee."

My coffee is going to come from Milstead & Co or Lighthouse Roasters; not because they're small and independent, but because they take pride in having exclusively high-quality beans, brewed by barristas who know how what they're doing.

I agree. Their earrings ARE disappointing.

Remember when Howard Schultz made a bold stand by selling the Sonics to out of town investors for a quick buck? Yeah, what a guy....

I don't drink coffee, and I'm morally opposed to paying $3 for a teabag and a cup that will become landfill, but on the very rare occasion that I DO go into a starbucks, this does make me feel less guilty about it.

Yeah, what 1 said. You forgot the "not until they learn how to roast a goddamn bean" option.

Yay billionaire CEOs!!!

Starbucks made 38% last year? Holy shit. This means he's just buying off his workers. Supporting gay marriage goes a long way toward staving off a unionization drive.

The way I see it, your tips to what is essentially the workers of a fast food chain subsidize Starbucks labor costs.

This is basically like asking if I'm more or less likely to support Starbucks because their CEO has never killed somebody, or doesn't beat his kids.

I can't get too excited about giving anyone or anything, particularly a massive, massively profitable business, credit for operating within the bounds of human decency.

Seattle would be better off if Starbucks just packed up and left Seattle for good. Close their shops, and shut down their offices in SODO. GOOD BYE!!!!

You don't have to buy their crappy coffee to show support (if you are so inclined). I like their version of the energy drink: "Starbucks Refreshers." It's the only one I've found that doesn't taste like a chemical factory.

They also have a ready-made egg-salad sandwich that's excellent for when I'm looking for a quick lunch. (There are three Starbucks in my office building, so...)

i don't go to starbucks, but not for any good reason, if i think about it. they treat their employees well for a large corporation, their coffee is servicable, if not actually good, and this certainly is a point in their favor. i'd just rather patronize smaller indie companies and roasters. the atmosphere is better, and the local shops need more support. i like variety. every starbucks is exactly the same, and it's boring. i will (shamefully) admit a small swelling of hometown pride when i saw this. they may be a giant multi-national corporation, but they're OUR giant multi-national corporation, damn it!

I'm largely with @ 1. I live far from Denver's good coffee shops, so sometimes I'm forced to patronize the nearby Starbucks, but I'll continue to do that on the as-necessary basis only.

@ 4, you could compost....

@ 9, you need to understand what a big deal it is for a CEO - any CEO - to stand up to a big investor and tell him his investment isn't welcome. This isn't "operating within the bounds of decency" by any stretch. It's a very public, very brave thing to do, and Schultz deserves major accolades for it.

When you're out in the provinces, Starbucks is the only game in town if you want any kind of espresso or wi-fi. In the city -- any real city -- of course, there's no reason to ever go there.

Except the bathrooms: For me what makes Starbucks a great company is their no-questions-asked access to their bathrooms. Though in the end I'm willing to beg the barista for a key at someplace with good coffee.

Starbucks is in business to make money. Big surprise.

As a regular customer and stockholder, I'm thrilled with their earnings, their great business plan and their policies. My brother and nephew worked there and they were paid well, had convenient hours and good benefits that were not offered at any other part time job they looked into.

As an LGBT American, I thank Mr. Schultz for his comments and company support.

I would rather they paid taxes in the countries where they sell coffee.

Where's the "never go to Sbux, but I'd feel less guilty when out of state" option?

For all the hand wringing about Starbucks and the fact that they're a giant mega-corp that will probably one day open a kiosk on the International Space Station (and -still- only pay minimum wage), isn't this the way we want such enterprises to be run? And it's hard not to smirk a little at the "Seriously? Bite me." attitude regarding equality. The 21st century must seem like a strange place to the oldsters.

Also, if you've never tried it, the Starbucks pumpkin bread is alright.

Wow, tough crowd. If you don't think it's brave to take even a mildly pro-LGBT position, than you don't know NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, OK, MO, KS, ND, SD, NE, UT, AZ, etc etc etc.

Sure. I hit at least 4 or 5 coffee shops/day. Usually I look for Vita, Zoka or other good coffee & only do SBucks when it's my only option. Proud of their stance. Happy to give em more of my business

I agree with 19, but you forgot MI. They voted to change their constitution in 2004 to ban gay marriage.

I don't think Starbucks has the best coffee, but they are always nice when I go in, and I make it a point to use businesses who have similar moral standards to my own. If we live in a free market where companies have political power, it is my duty to support those with my ideals.

@ 21, I wouldn't condemn any state for how they voted in 2004. That's a measure of how easy it is to amend the constitution in MI, as well as where almost every state in America was standing in 2004. Hell, Colorado did the same in 2006, but just became the 9th state to grant either marriage or civil unions. (And it will be full marriage before the decade's out, mark my words.)

When frigging California can vote against gay marriage as late as 2008, any state, including Washington, could have too, if the bigots had chosen to focus there. It's not a whole lot different than Civil Rights measures failing just a few years before 1964. The tide simply hadn't turned yet.

Soviet-supported Communitarianism (aka, "soft" Communism) relies heavily on the destruction of the family unit, for the purpose of replacing the family with the State. This is necessary for the progression of Communitarianism.

This is why central banker-backed institutions and media, using infinite fiat money created by central banks, are pushing for what is called the "demoralization of society."

Research ex-KGB intelligence and propaganda expert YURI BEZMENOV and his books, for details.