Disclaimer: This may turn into a rant, but I’ll try to keep it a balanced discussion. However, those who know me well are aware how any scandal that besmirches the good name of coffee vending raises my ire.
If you’ve been frequenting similar areas of Facebook/Twitter/Blogsphere that I’ve been, you may have heard of a little bit of a sh*tstorm in the past few days regarding the coffee chain “Gloria Jean’s”
The basic gist of the story is that the coffee chain, which is owned by members of the Hillsong Church, donated $30,000 to the Australian Christian Lobby in the last election year. At the outset, I’ll make it clear that this donation was made by the owners, and was not (as far as I know) done in consultation with the franchisees.
GJs have said in a statement that the donation was a once off, made “in support of the prime ministerial debate only”. They also are at great pains to point out that Gloria Jeans “are not religiously affiliated or affiliated to any other beliefs or preferences, including Hillsong” – evidently, hoping we’ll forget all about that business with Mercy Ministries a few years ago.
On the discussion thread on their Facebook page (currently 350 comments or so), many are calling for a boycott of Gloria Jeans. Which is hard for me to implement, because I was already doing so.
——————-
On a (somewhat) related note, over in Georgia in the US, the Ku Klux Klan are looking to Adopt-a-Highway – causing a slight headache given that the application cannot be denied merely on religious or political views. (I do wonder whether they intend to paint the tarmac white? )
Which brings me to the subject of charity: Should the KKK be prevented from doing charity (arguably a public good) merely because it brings them publicity? Should a company be held to account for donating to a political party or charity? After all – they, like us, are entitiled to religious and political views. If we don’t like them, the polling booth or the MP’s office is the place to make that statement. I recall an incident at a previous workplace where, after the tsunami had devastated Indonesia, one staff member was happy to donate to the relief efforts, but not to Red Cross because she was Jewish and felt that (despite their charter) they were de-facto a religious charity since they used a cross as their emblem. (I’d presume she wasn’t a blood donor, then…)
Tweet this!
One more reason to
Not go to Gloria Jean‘s
Don‘t like their coffee
If the parent company or the owner exposes its franchises to financial loss, the franchise contract better be rock solid because that could be actionable.
The State has every right to deny an organization’s application for the Adopt-a-Highway program. They don’t even have to give a “good” reason for it. The Adopt-a-Highway program is designed to get a group to take responsibility for cleanup of that particular stretch of road. The KKK better have someone out there 24/7 because people will go out if their way to buy McDonald’s Happy Meals just to have the extra trash to drop out their car windows. And the sign? “This highway was adopted by the KKK.” That’ll disappear every 3rd or 4th day, if people don’t just run it over or paint it.
Was your Jewish co-worker unaware that in Muslim countries they use a different symbol and organization name? The International Red Crescent. Did they also refuse to do maths because despite it having a different name, the plus sign is a religious symbol? I won’t donate to the Red Cross or Red Crescent because they want $$ that can be “disappeared” through their bank accounts. They won’t take my blood because I spent too much time in foreign swamps & jungles, and when I tried to drop off necessities after 9/11, they told me they would only accept money. Money, it turns out, that would have found its was into other programs and not get used as the donation was intended. 9/11, Katrina, Haiti… $Millions donated, and small percentages delivered.
That’s exactly why I don’t donate to the Red Cross, too, Ghrys.
Yes, she was aware of that, and cheerfully made mention of it but the fact that they don’t use a Star of David.
I did point out that this was because the Red Cross and Red Crescent are protected symbols for aid and recue workers under the Geneva Conventions, whereas the Star of David isn’t and that this was the sole reason why. Didn’t seem to sway her, even when I emailed her the relevant sections.
Where did you find this out about Red Cross Ghrys?
It was widely reported in the news over in the States. I’m a bit busy making pasta right now, but I’ll pull up some links later.
If you have the time, you should find info from:
The New Yorker which reported that the Red Cross was disbursing funds in upscale Manhattan neighborhoods to people merely “inconvenienced” by the 9/11 attacks rather than putting the money to relief & recovery efforts and assistance to directly affected victims.
Haiti, where it’s been reported that less than 1% of the funds collected for relief from the earthquake went directly to Haiti. Most of the funds went to external organizations and for-profit relief groups. And because of this, much of the relief sat a the ports because these organizations had planned to leave vehicles and equipment in Haiti long-term, making it subject to import taxes and duties. Also, instead of rebuilding, land owners were collecting fees from these groups by renting their land as parking and storage facilities. (Not entirely the fault of the Red Cross, but had they utilized the funds themselves, a lot of tis could have been avoided.)
Hurricane Katrina became another fiasco because the Red Cross outsourced fund disbursement to organizations with less than stellar oversight. Google “katrina red cross PIN scams” for that info.
Got a call about a job I applied for, so I had to do some studying and prepping for a potential job interview instead of digging for links. I hope you had some success digging for them yourself.
It’s reasons like this that I am wary of donating to any of the larger charity organisations in terms of actual money. I would much rather donate to a charity such as Sanctuary For Kids where although it is smaller I can see where the money I am donating is being put to use. Either that or I will give my own time to charities such as St Vincent De Paul for things such as christmas hamper packing and night patrol. I firmly believe charity starts closer to home.
All that and the coffee is undrinkable as well. I have no idea how they turn a profit.
Running late and have to find a replacement for a sick staff member as well, so have to run, but nice rant.
They distract you from the quality of their coffee with stuff like this.
The coffee at GJ’s isn’t great coffee, it’s not even good coffee, it’s the kind of stuff you drink after the ‘Blend 43′ has run out. However if you are looking for a frappe or an alternative to a milkshake then it’s probably the best place for you.
I feel that religion and politics should be kept out of coffee, at the end of the day making a good coffee is hard enough.
Normal order – Cappuccino, No sugar
When treating myself – Vanilla Slice with an Espresso (also no sugar)
It is indeed – plus, it’s great that Columbia has a legitimate drug to export as well.
Columbia was played by Nell Campbell.
Colombia is a country in South America that borders Panama.
See? This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about.
If I’d had my morning coffee BEFORE I post, I would have been awake enough to proofread!
I’m fond of the Tim Tam ice chocolates
Oh, the KKK want to adopt a highway? What good clean boys they must be. This convinces me that they have changed their bigoted ways.
NOT.
Do they really think doing something like this will change anyone’s opinion of their organization? Kudos to them for having an idea that is constructive, though. Deny the applicaton for the practical reasons Ghryswald mentioned and hope beyond all cynicism that this is an actual sign of change for them.
I don’t do chain coffee places as a rule. The little independent cafe on the corner tends to have nicer coffee because they know they can’t trade on their brand alone. They also treat you better.
The cafe I go to don’t even ask my order any more. They just write my name on the bottom of the cup and take my money, because they all know what I want to drink.
I provide IT support to my local coffee shop, and I named their server after my preferred coffee.
Got any IT contacts in Brisbane I can hit up for jobby type interviews?
I’ll accept this as a rant about when coffee vending raises your ire when I accept that what they serve is coffee.
I’m with Scoobs in that they’re reasonable (or on a par with most places) for something cold but coffee? Right…
Coming from a bit of an economic background, I say let them do what they like. People will vote with their feet.
If I was a franchisee I would not be impressed.
As a person who never actually goes to Gloria Jean’s I don’t think there is much I can do about this to show my dissatisfaction but in spirit I am right there with you.
Adopting a highway is not a right; you are not entitled to it. The local government authority can and should just say no.
I had no hot water for a shower this morning and no electricity last night so I feel a bit odd. My temporary housemates assured me that the power came back on just recently though and they are making something nice for dinner for me when I get home so yay for temporary sleep over arrangements and fingers crossed the really bad weather is over.
Yay for power being back on and housemates that make nommy dinners!
I confess that I stopped going to GJs years ago with the Mercy Ministries stuff, but I am unsurprised.
I do feel for the franchisees though. This will make their life tough.
AS for the KKK, they need no more notoriety, so I would say no. Is a shame there is one less group to look after the area though.
–hijack–
When I saw this I had to bring it to the attention of the good splatters out there
I present to you, the Bacon Sundae
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-bars/burger-chain-unleashes-bacon-sundae/story-fn93ypt9-1226393959098
Smoph, I think we’ll need to move the plans for our U.S. trip forward a bit, to make sure we don’t miss out!
I would like to preface all this by saying that, as most of you know, I am not religious nor a member of the Australian Christian Lobby.
Failing to see how the Ku Klux Klan adopting a highway is a ‘some what related note’ to a business man making a donation to a group who, aside from some disagreeable politics and some differing opinions to those on this blog, aren’t doing anything wrong.
I think people boycotting coffee for this reason is sad! Are we *really* such a pathetic generation that our idea of protesting something we don’t agree with is by not buying a franchisees coffee??? I get really angry at the idea that people don’t go to Gloria Jeans because they are linked to hill-song. Just because you drink their coffee, doesn’t automatically make you a f*cking member. Sheesh.
Should a company be held to account for donating to a political party or charity?
-Somebody’s political beliefs shouldn’t affect their business. I don’t think I have ever walked into a Gloria Jeans store and seen propaganda for the Australian Christian Lobby, even if I did, should we stop walking down streets with Labor Signs? Has anyone on this blog ever been heckled by staff about the Australian Christian Lobby? I doubt anyone has. So why the hell should their individual beliefs that we dont agree with mean that we stop giving them business? Do you know how many businesses you would have to stop going to if you based your opinions on where the money was going after you spent it?
Should the KKK be prevented from doing charity (arguably a public good) merely because it brings them publicity?
-The Ku Klux Klan are known for their exorbitantly racist behaviour, frankly I wasn’t aware that they were still legally allowed to operate based on their origins way back when. The KKK are known for inciting fear and terror in those who are different. No, they shouldn’t be allowed to do charity for promotion, only because I don’t think that their out of date group should be legal given what they are known for doing.
I recall an incident at a previous workplace where, after the tsunami had devastated Indonesia, one staff member was happy to donate to the relief efforts, but not to Red Cross because she was Jewish and felt that (despite their charter) they were de-facto a religious charity since they used a cross as their emblem. (I’d presume she wasn’t a blood donor, then…)
- I recall once being pulled aside by a charity person when I was outside the Glebe markets. I had some time to kill, so I figured that I didn’t mind spending some time chatting to her. She seemed happy enough. She asked me if I was donating to a charity at that time, like every year, I was contributing a small amount of my pay to a charity (at that time, World Vision). I told her this and she shook her head in shock and horror. Her next question was ‘Are you religious?’ to which I answered ‘While I appreciate faith, I would not consider myself to be a religious person,’ she then launched into a tirade about how ‘World Vision’ is super religious and how it is wrong that I am giving my money to them instead of her ‘Non-Religious’ Charity. I walked away at this point. I don’t care if World Vision are religious. They are doing a good thing at the end of the day, isn’t that what matters?
Now a question for you all: When the hell did we become so hell bent against religious entities? I mean, for crying out loud, we’re all trying to survive in this world and unless someone is stuffing religion down your throat or causing harm to people, who cares what others believe in!? Yes, we are always going to debate about certain things, like Gay Marriage, but why must ‘Non Believers’ now become the witch hunters against ‘Believers’???
Sigh. Did my comment just go into the ether?
The link is (slightly) recursive – in the case of GJ’s, it’s about a company donating to an organisation known for making bigoted statements. For the KKK, it’s an organisation known for bigoted statements and actions performing a public good.
Re-read the link about Mercy Ministries – Gloria Jeans actively fundraised for them, and presented the advertising material in all their stores.
Very true. But, on the other hand, the money they donated comes from corporate profits, and that money comes directly from consumers. If I wouldn’t donate to the ACL directly – and I wouldn’t because I don’t agree with their ethos – should I then buy products knowing that part of the profits will go there?
Buying a Nike product doesn’t make me a sweat shop owner, either. But it does make me part of the eco-system that supports them.
That article states that Hillsong didnt know this was happening. I highly doubt Gloria Jeans did either.
I will admit, I had never heard of this and I only read the article AFTER I wrote my response, however as mentioned above, I don’t think Gloria Jeans would have knowingly taken part in this misconduct of treatment for these girls.
I don’t agree with the religion my Barista follows but I’m sure every Sunday some of the $3.30 I pay every day goes into the money collection tin… Does that mean I should stop buying coffee from him? It’s a very precious thing. If you stopped purchasing from people who spent your funds on things you didn’t like or agree with, I think you would find yourself never consuming a lot of products you love and enjoy.
Very different if you ask me…
The individual franchisees, I don’t think so either.
But the direction to raise funds and to carry the advertising came from the owners, whom are active Hillsong members. One of tehm, Peter Irvine (mentioned in the SMH article I linked above) was CEO of both Mercy Ministries and the Gloria Jeans group. So clearly he knew what was happening.
It does – and I really don’t believe that. Mercy Ministries was founded in the U.S., but was brought to Australia by a Hillsong pastor. A number of members of the church were on the board of directors, or employed as staff.
Further, if Mercy Ministries was indeed keeping them locked up, and the only time they were allowed out was once a week to go to Hillsong worship services, then it’s pretty clear that Hillsong were aware and complicit in it. It would be too much of a risk otherwise.
Not sure that I’d describe choosing not to donate money too a religious charity, or choosing not to purchase coffee from a particular store on par with a ‘witch hunt.’ I don’t drink coffee so a bit of a non issue for me, but I don’t like what ACL stands for or what they promote (anti gay marriage etc) so I would not be inclined to a) donate any money to them or b) purchase something from a store that donates profits or gives a portion of profits too them. I wouldn’t want to give financial support to such an organisation.
I’m certainly not anti-religious charities though, like World Vision, provided of course they don’t ram religion onto those they are assisting or, just as an example, advise against using birth control etc. World Vision does have as one of it’s values ‘Christian Engagement’ and increasing stakeholders understanding of the Christian message etc. though. If a donater does not wish to be part of an organisation that is promoting Christianity then they may choose to donate to an equally good secular charity instead.
Are we slowly edging into that way of thinking as a largely non-religious society?
I’ve asked the same question to Al, I don’t agree with the religion my Barista follows but I’m sure every Sunday some of the $3.30 I pay every day goes into the money collection tin… Does that mean I should stop buying coffee from him?
Isn’t it the same thing. We don’t like where our money is being spent AFTER we spend it? I wouldn’t donate to them either, but spending money in a store where they have something that I want and need and handing them the funds saying ‘Im buying this product but you can only spend MY money on the follow list of approved items’ is like my boss paying me and telling me I’m only allowed to spend my pay on things that he deems acceptable…
Agree 110% here and I wouldn’t support a charity that did that…
Exactly. I don’t think the ‘Christian Message’ is always bad. Sure, I disagree with some of their stuff, but on a whole, there could be worse messages spread around! You are so right in saying that a donater can choose not to donate to a charity with that particular message, I suppose I was just floored at why this girl was so adamant that what World Vision were doing was wrong when, at the end of the day, they were both trying to achieve more sustainable living for third world countries.
As a side note, i’ve missed debates like this!!! I’m not around as much any more! Yay!
I guess I don’t really see a barista with a different religion to me as quite the same thing…mainly because I don’t dislike religions, I dislike the specific actions and messages of certain groups. But yes, yay for debate!
And I agree with you about the angry charity person bagging World Vision
We are a generation that thinks we are activists because we put a status update in our Facebook profiles or use a hashtag in our tweets. And yes, that is pathetic.
*gives round of applause*
Much like advertising targeting men as being stupid has become acceptable, so has anti-religion. It’s been that way in the States for some time. People simply cannot accept that a person who has faith in “their sky god” (as the detractors say – and note the lower-case ‘g’), can be anything but a bible-thumping lemming.
I know many people who are religious, on both sides of the spectrum from Born Again Christians to Goddess Worshipping Pagans. And they are all intelligent people.
It’s when the religious organization attempts to force their morality on me or others that I will speak against them. And it appears from my reading that Hillsong was denying their charges proper psychiatric and medical care, substituting prayer instead. If they believe in God, then they should also believe that God let people train as doctors and psychiatrists… Just sayin’
I gotta say that that one really annoys me… It’s a double standard! Men and women BOTH deserve respect!
When health and well being comes into the question it is a different matter, but for the most part they seem pretty harmless. Just different…
Hmm… I don’t remember that one. I remember the diggers, the builders, and the ones with the time bomb, though.
Your old-school reference was not lost on me…
On this point:
“Should a company be held to account for donating to a political party or charity?”
Firstly on the subject of corporate sponsorship of political parties – I want to know who is bank rolling the parties/ individuals who are up for election, I want to know what agenda they are likely to be pushing and the level of their interest in the “democratic” process.
Personally I think politicians should have to have disclaimers on their policy announcements the same way we would have to acknowledge if we say something positive about a brand due to sponsorship. I want to know what bits got cut out of legislation because some company, individual or lobby group didn’t think it would work in their favour, regardless of which side of politics they are on.
As for holding them accountable it isn’t about me wanting to dictate to the people who I give my money to once I have given you my money you are free to do what you want and this is not the same as a witch hunt; I do not wish the individuals employed by the company any personal ill. Nor do I like the fact that the business may have to fire people due to the impact on long term profitability if enough other people do the same thing as me.
I am aware that my ultimate goal is to try and shape their profit spending choices or in a broader context their decisions, like it or not that is effectively the case with every spending decision you make and so it should be, consumers should retain the right to choose, it’s the only power we have.
I believe it is my right to give my money to people whose choices as to what they do with their profits align with what I think is right. If GJ, for example, don’t like me choosing to buy elsewhere they may change their practises or they may not, it’s up to them. I won’t ever feel bad about deliberately choosing not to give money to companies whose choices I don’t agree with though.
Same with charities, I only give to charities that do not have a Christian/ religious agenda because I don’t wish to fund missionary activity. I do my research and instead give generously to charities that do good work without a religious affiliation. My money gives me the power of choice in this regard and it is fair that I retain it. I don’t have a problem with the charities who have a religious agenda doing their good work but I do have the right to not give them my money.
Re: “Do you know how many businesses you would have to stop going to if you based your opinions on where the money was going after you spent it?”
To some degree yes and it pains me to have to continue to do so if there is no other option. I am a passionate advocate for Fair Wear for example but if I stopped buying my clothes from companies who engaged in unfair labour practices I would end up walking around naked and no one wants that. In cases where I have a choice, I appreciate my ability to choose to support only those I agree with.
I would not be pathetic for choosing to act on my beliefs (in this case my belief that Gloria Jeans does things with the profit they make that I don’t personally agree with) in this way (not going to Gloria Jeans) any more than people are pathetic for going to church every Sunday or choosing to wear a Yarmulke.
Freedom of belief is a complex and difficult thing; it requires everybody to have some tolerance and respect. It is both a responsibility and a privilege in that respect.
It becomes a double standard if people have the right to believe in God but I don’t have the right to spend my money as I see fit, in this case the best fit for my money in my opinion is not GJ. It’s fundamentally the same thing as your passionate defence of their right to do what they want with their profits, of course they do but they would be foolish in the extreme if they thought that consumers are going to ignore company activities that they find distasteful or unaligned to their own personal view point.
*As an academic point your example about your employer not having the right to have a say in how you spend your wage is an interesting one as people are fired on occasion for making personal decisions that put the company in a bad light, including their financial choices, my point is only that it does and will continue to happen, not that it should.
^ this!
Choosing not to support a company with your hard earned $ if you disagree with any of its corporate behaviour (pollution, exploitation, support of dubious causes etc etc) is perfectly valid. I have boycotted GJ’s for many years due to the particular religious affiliations.
I’m all for standing for what you believe in, but I also acknowledge that not everyone has the same beliefs as me.
For society to function as a whole everyone needs to respect everyone elses beliefs. (Something that we are not doing very well at the moment!) I dont mean that you should stand idly by when a person is being attacked, but Gloria Jean’s is a company for goodness sake. It’s not like the franchise owners are refusing service, or condoning attacking people. The company decided to make a donation to a charitable organisation.
If you dont agree with a companies belief then by all means dont support them, but dont try to denounce them for their beliefs. They have as much right to theirs as you have to yours.
Society is severly lacking in empathy, understanding and respect these days. I for one find that very sad.
“Society is severly lacking in empathy, understanding and respect these days.”
It isn’t lacking in any of things things in my opinion, we just hear a lot about the opposite.
I think when the beliefs are abhorrent, like mercy ministries or the KKK, denouncing them is a reasonable reaction
It’s nice to see some debate and discussion of different opinions.
While I can see Poppit’s Point of view, I’m with AL on this one. What the Mercy Ministries was doing involved deprivation of liberty and other acts that are actually not just illegal, but criminal. They are entitled to their religious beliefs but not to the point of view of trying to force them onto others, especially the weak and vulnerable (not quite a Christian approach, wouldn’t you agree?).
As AL pointed out, it is hard to believe the Hillsong organisation didn’t know this was happening.
Tough on the franchisees? Maybe, but I’m entitled to take my business where I want and exclude it from where I want for whatever reasons strike me as valid and Gloria Jeans will never get my business even if they do figure out how to make a good coffee. That may be tough on the franchisees, but it’s good for the cafes I do go to. Again, surely my choice whether you like my reasons or not?
You said the same thing as me in so few words!!!! Perfect H.
Fundamentally, it’s called a trade embargo on a much smaller scale and I believe it beats war of any kind, yet it hurts and makes people think. Passive objection will always beat bloodshed and violent (verbal or physical) confrontation.
Religion aside, I’d like to take it down to a more tangible level. Would you befriend and lend your lawn mower to a neighbour who appears to be beating his wife and terrorising his children. I think not.
It is everyone’s right to boycott a business because they engage in activity that is not moral from your own point of view. It is, however, immoral to boycott a business because they do not believe in the same god, politics or religious ideas.
Sad as it may be, we do not all agree with each other, but the most humane and sensible way to deal with those disagreements is to go else where, with no violence or confrontation.
Plus, their coffee sucks eggs.
Also, including the KKK in this argument is awful. I would prefer to never type those three letters again for as long as I live. Fuck them.
They were told to bugger off.
A good result!