Howard Schultz

Starbucks Founder and CEO Howard Schultz received a significant amount of publicity this week when he vigorously supported same-sex marriage.  During a recent shareholder’s meeting Schultz rebuked Tom Strobhar of the Corporate Morality Action Center, an anti-gay corporate pressure group.  Strobhar brought up the issue of Starbucks having recently been boycotted by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Strobhar made the suggestion that this boycott may be losing the company revenue (via The Blaze)

Schultz response was cheered wildly both at the time and via the MSM and liberal blogosphere. Of course it’s awful convenient that Schultz takes his “courageous” stance at a time when support for same sex marriage is at an all-time high. Mr. Schultz is entitled to his opinion and has every right to voice it.  If he personally is in favor of same-sex marriage, more power to him.  But you have to question the wisdom of the CEO of a publically traded company willing to alienate a significant amount of the population to make a political point.

The irony of the situation is fascinating. When a business leader comes out with a popular liberal viewpoint he or she is applauded for their “courage”. The fact that such a move can potentially do damage to shareholder value is absolutely dismissed. As founder of the company Mr. Schultz is still the dominant force that drives company strategy, but as a public company he still answers to a board of directors and a significant amount of shareholders.  

It’s debatable whether or not targeted boycotts even work but what’s not debatable is the fact that even with support for gay marriage at an all-time high there is still a minimum of 40% of the population that opposes it. From a sheer stock price analysis there is no proof that the NOM boycott last summer had any real impact on the bottom line of Starbucks, although they did have a tough recent earnings report. Still, there are coffee shops on every corner so it’s not that difficult to pass by Starbucks and pick up your latte somewhere else. 

It’s fascinating when you look at the coverage of the Chick-fil-A controversy with the Starbucks controversy. When Dan Cathey, CEO of Chick-fil-A, came out in support of traditional marriage it ignited a firestorm. What was conveniently dismissed in the faux-outrage over Cathey’s comments was the fact that Chick-fil-A is a privately held and family owned company and can run their business the way they see fit without shareholders to answer to. A standard response by many in the liberal media was the idea that he should keep his private views to himself and focus on business. As expected many groups attempted to boycott the company, something they have every right to do. 

For those scoring at home here is how the game is played:  If the boycott supports a liberal cause its good and altruistic.  If it supports a conservative cause it’s backwards and unrealistic.Here’s hoping that Howard Schultz continues to stand up for what he believes in.  Good for him, there is nothing more American than taking a stand for your personal believes. Here’s also hoping that Americans who oppose those viewpoints and support traditional marriage vote against Starbucks with their pocketbooks. Like many Americans when I pick up my morning coffee it won’t be at Starbucks.