CONFESSIONS OF A STARBUCKS PASTOR

A recent trending media story reports that a Vermont bistro felt compelled to remove their outdoor faux traffic sign saying " Yield for Sneakers Bacon ". Because a local Muslim resident felt the sign was "offensive" since she does not eat bacon. A spokesperson for the eatery said they wanted to be respectful to the community but still loved bacon. Hey I can't eat bacon either but it would not occur to me to expect my men - or anyone in the world for that matter - to avoid it just because of me. I love the Bacon movement! (Happy International Bacon Day, by the way.) So we've come to this. We're going to start whimpering about what various business signs say if they don't match our specific thinking or ethics? What happens when we cater to every single possible combination of thought? What if a flower or tree offends someone - do we mow them down, too? I don't like horror movies. Should my dislike have clout over movie producers or should I ju...

Just wondering... If you were a corporate CEO, would you let your biggest competitors know your annual plans? I mean, wouldn't that be fair ? If you were competing in a baking contest, would you give your rivals your great-grandmother's secret recipe? After all, aren't you nice ? If you were with the health department, would you publish your surprise inspection dates so that all the cafes on your list  had a fair chance to get ready? If you invented a new drink at Starbucks that was sure to double national sales, you'd give Caribou a heads up on the big new campaign so they could get ready, right? If you were an NFL coach for the number two team, you'd let the coach for the number one team have access to your play books and training videos, right? After all we want to demonstrate equal footing , don't we? Oh. Wait. You're saying "NO" to all of the above, right? I know I am. Then help me with this one, please. Tell me why it is supp...

I spent a bit of time perusing the internet the other day and read some chilling stories about how government has treated select groups of people. One group of people had marginalized citizenry, was prohibited from certain areas and received reduced rations going without public transportation. Another group of people had marginalized citizenry, was prohibited from certain areas and received reduced rations also going without public transportation. In both cases the government legitimized the seizure of personal property for redistribution and labeled such targeting as a national security measure. In both cases only those not fitting a particular point of view were targeted. In both cases it appears as if the rest of the nation went along with it, for awhile. Who am I referring to? In the first illustration, I am referring to the Holocost where over 11 million people were relocated and murdered because they did not fit a certain profile. In the second illustration, I am referri...