Watch where you spend your money


Dear Friends of the Family,
It is easy to know the organizations that are fighting against the values that we hold, whether it be the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Planned Parenthood or MassEquality. We also know who our allies are: Family Research Council (FRC), Focus on the Family, and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), among many others.
But it isn’t nearly as easy to identity cultural enemies when it comes to corporations and retailers. Some are very outward in their support for the homosexual agenda, such as The Home Depot. Others are more muted in their affirmation of same-sex “marriage.”
But two have come to light recently, and you should strongly consider withholding your hard-earned money from their businesses. These corporations are no longer neutral in the culture war; they have now fully and outwardly chosen sides in the battle for marriage.
Starbucks – never confused with a conservative company – has thrown their corporate support and resources behind the efforts to ensure that same-sex “marriage” becomes the law in Washington State.
“They are ACTIVELY promoting same-sex marriage legislation…with their name…with their prestige…and with their money,” wrote National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Chairman Brian Brown recently.
Minnesota is another state where the definition of marriage will be on the ballot this November, and it is there that we find another corporation that has chosen to fund an organization whose purpose is to redefine marriage. Target Corporation, whose bulls-eye logo is prominent on its stores around the nation, has put traditional marriage directly in its sights.
The company has announced that it will make a donation worth up to $120,000 to the Family Equality Council (FEC), a homosexual advocacy group that opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In the month of June, the chain will donate the proceeds from online sales of a special collection of shirts, including one designed by singer Gwen Stefani, to the organization.
It is unfortunate that two popular brands like Starbucks and Target have chosen to oppose the majority of Americans who support natural and historic marriage. They as companies have chosen sides in the culture war, and it is time that we stand up to them and withhold our financial support.
I love coffee and I love Starbucks coffee, but they have received their last penny from me and my family. And our family is large, with four children and ten grandchildren, and Target will no longer get our business. I strongly encourage you and your family to do the same. Pass along this information to your friends and your neighbors.
For our families,
Kris
P.S. Our petition to President Obama and our congressional delegation supporting natural and historic marriage is ongoing. Be sure to add your name to it if you haven’t already, and consider making a donation to MFI to help us continue our work representing your family on Beacon Hill and beyond.

Share:

More Posts

They’re Definitely Not Grooming Kids in Newburyport

Our culture has become so completely desensitized to the grotesque sexualization of children, people refuse to see it even when it’s right in front of their eyes. This is certainly true of a taxpayer funded group in Newburyport, MA that

BREAKING: 9-0 Victory in Boston Christian Flag Case!!

We all know that the Boston city government is ideologically liberal.  But now we have confirmation that they are to the left of every single justice currently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.  I got the news about a tremendous legal

Somerville Finally Allows Church To Open New School

SOMERVILLE SCHOOL COMMITTEE GRANTS PERMISSION FOR LOCAL CHURCH TO OPEN A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL AFTER MONTHS OF OPPOSITION. “If we didn’t vote to approve, we’d be sued and we would lose.” The showdown in Somerville has ended with a victory for

Defending Parental Rights in Ludlow, MA

Last week, I filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two families against public school officials in Ludlow, MA. The families are suing for violations of their parental rights stemming from a district policy prohibiting school staff from