Starbucks Labeled "Slutbucks" By Christian Group Due To New Logo

Starbucks has trotted out a new logo on their coffee cups which has raised the ire of a Christian group known as "The Resistance," leading them to call for a boycott of the Seattle chain. As Think Progress explains, the logo was part of a campaign by the company to introduce a new roast that could compete with less expensive varieties of coffee.

This logo, pictured below, caused the Resistance to issue the following press release:

Starbucks has recently introduced a new version of their logo which features a topless mermaid with her legs spread, which has caused outrage from a nation wide Christian media watchdog organization. The Resistance, with has over 3000 members nationwide, is boycotting Starbucks across the country saying their new logo is inappropriate.

The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute, explains Mark Dice, founder of the group. Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves, Slutbucks.

Comments

[pablito]

I prefer modestly sexualized imagery to explicitly violent imagery any time. I would much rather my children see this new logo than an image of some guy nailed onto two pieces of wood, with a pained expression, tears, and blood streaming from his hands for example.

[SkuddGobang]

I'm so glad that Christians know who the real enemies are in this world. Wow, I almost bought a cup of coffee from a company that deals in fair trade coffee but has a mermaid with two tails.

Now.. shouldn't they be more upset that a mermaid is a magical beast like a unicorn or a dragon and therefor it promotes Magic or witch craft?

Or.. um.. maybe they could be more upset that other companies buy coffee from dictators of third-world banana republics?

[DannyEastVillage]

dude, I'd bet you a week's pay the nitwits that don't like the logo wouldn't have the slightest idea what "fair trade coffee" is. They're too busy minding other people's sex lives to learn anything about morality.

[nellie]

What was the old logo? I wouldn't even have noticed the change.

Fair trade organic coffee!

[naschkatze]

The old logo was basically the same, only more stylized. I liked it better, however, from an aesthetic not moral point of view.

[Gakl]

The "New Logo" is the OLD "Logo." As in the original logo. The new logo was sanitized f those with body image issues.

[PeterTheChanter]

Well, a Christian boycott of Starbucks is probably a good thing...wh­o needs a bunch of joe'd up fundies condemning the rest of us at twice the normal rate of speed?

[Gary47]

Right on, dude!

[Dendera]

With her legs spread? Mermaids have no legs.

[gakabani]

Ignorance prevails with this so called 'Christians'

[pilotinfla]

This is a green version of the pre 1987 logo http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2005/06/the_evolution_o.html

[pilotinfla]

The looks a lot like the original logo before it was "modernized".

[Gakl]

That's because it *is* the ORIGINAL logo before it was sanitized for corporate consumption.

[exflatlander]

This whole thing is so stupid as not to be newsworthy. We do still have a war going on, don't we? First of all, mythical mermaids don't have two tails, which are tails, not "legs". So Starbucks is really stretching to introduce sex as a sales pitch. And that's pitiful. However, for anybody to register anything but disgust at such pathetic advertising, is equally stupid. In the end they just get people like me to wonder if I should avoid Starbucks because of their stupid assumption that a topless mermaid will entice me to buy a cup of coffee, or to go there and buy a gallon of it to spite these mindless "Christians" who see themselves as self-styled moral compasses for the nation.

[BookQueen]

You have to be obsessed with sex to find the new Starbucks logo lewd.

[ramal]

Let's see: hunger, poverty and disease increasing worldwide; an environment in decay; corporate and governmental corruption at unprecedented highs; a raging war in the MIddle East... These people should be ashmaed of themselves. Their name should be expanded to "The Resistance TO CHRISTIAN ETHIC." Please get a life and get it on another planet.

[lungfish]

Ah gee willikers, maybe we can just put that mermaid in a burqa....W­ouldn't want any good Christians to be tempted by some ungodly fishwoman with her fishy parts spread wide open in a provocative and suggestively lewd manner....­. (Whenever I screw fish women I make sure that we each have a bag over our heads and then I go straight to confession­.) in fact we shouldn't be putting pictures of women out there of any kind because some Christian nutjob might have to deal with a boner and need someone to blame for those "dirty" feelings..­.. for pete's sake.

[naschkatze]

LOL. A mess of Christians getting boners from gazing at paper coffee cups. That tells you something about THEM, doesn't it? Weirdos!

[naschkatze]

"No thanks, I don't need room for cream."

[naschkatze]

No, maybe that should be, "Yes please, leave room for the 'cream'."

[damilgin24]

Hummm, Let's see. As far as I know mermaids do not have legs. What is going through the mind of these people?

[Strayker]

Rev. Jerry Falwell warned us about mermaids before he passed. But...did anyone LISTEN?!!

[whiskeytangofoxtrot451]

I thought that was Tinky Winky?

[exflatlander]

How funny!

[freshpavement]

Is this REALLY a concern?
What a bunch of jerks.
Why even give this silly group ink (or pixels)?
Let them boycott.