Ben & Jerry’s Australia Refuses to Sell Two Scoops of Same Flavor Until Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Legalized in Country

Asserting that “love comes in all flavors,” the Australian branch of the popular ice cream parlor chain Ben & Jerry’s is refusing to sell two scoops of the same flavor until same-sex “marriage” is legalized in the country.

The company has produced a short video and statement outlining why patrons in all 26 of its Australian locations won’t be able to have chocolate and chocolate, or strawberry and strawberry at this time.

“Imagine heading down to your local scoop shop to order your favorite two scoops of cookie dough in a waffle cone. But you find out you are not allowed—Ben & Jerry’s has banned two scoops of the same flavor. You’d be furious!” it writes on its website.

“But this doesn’t even begin to compare to how furious you would be if you were told you were not allowed to marry the person you love,” Ben & Jerry’s outlines. “So we are banning two scoops of the same flavor and encouraging our fans to contact their MPs to tell them that the time has come: Make marriage equality legal! Love comes in all flavors!”

The company states that it has placed post boxes in all of its stores for customers to write notes to parliamentarians in support of same-sex nuptials. It is also urging Aussies to sign a petition created by the homosexual advocacy group Equality Campaign.

“At Ben & Jerry’s we love love, and we think most Australians do too. More Australians than ever before believe everyone should have the right to love who they love—and marry them too, if that’s what makes you happy,” the ice cream icon claims.

This is not the first time that Ben & Jerry’s has actively supported homosexual relationships. In 1996, the company awarded grant money to the advocacy group PFLAG, and in 2010, it allowed its Georgetown scoop shop to be used for a same-sex ceremony.

  • Connect with Christian News

It joined two amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, and also gave several of its flavors related themes, such as “hubby hubby,” “appl-y ever after” and “I dough, I dough.”

Thursday’s announcement regarding the company’s ban on two scoops of the same flavor drew mixed reaction, with some applauding the idea and others vowing to boycott the ice cream chain.

“That’s what being a leader is all about! Thanks for helping to move Australia into the modern world,” one commenter wrote.

“Getting two of the same flavor is your right, so too should SSM be. This is an act of protest I will be supporting!” another remarked.

“Children growing up without either a male or female parent do worse in every way. Ben & Jerry’s sacrifices kids’ well-being for [a] political agenda,” a third lamented.

“So you’re promoting a more dangerous behavior than smoking? Will you be promoting smoking next? That’s not love,” another stated.

Ben & Jerry’s has been vocal about a number of other social issues, including racial justice, global warming and fair trade. It even created an “endangered” ice cream campaign to express concern about climate change. Last January, in support of liberal presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the company released a flavor named “Bernie’s Yearning.”

2 Corinthians 5:15 reads, “And that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • bowie1

    Ice cream lovers can then buy their own ice cream and cones or cups and have as many scoops as they want in Australia. It costs less too!

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      You get it! You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, but discrimination in public is bad! Congratulations, sir! Welcome to the Progressive movement!

      • Amos Moses

        no … just refusing to support idiotic ideas …………… and those who hold them ……

  • InTheChurch

    I like chocolate in the bottom and cherry on top. LOL

  • Oboehner

    I suppose next they’ll refuse to sell a scoop and a half.

  • Jason Todd

    Ben & Jerry’s has long been known to be leftist to the core. I stopped buying it back in the ’90s, when they discontinued Mint & Oreo Cookies because Oreo was Nabisco, owned by RJ Reynolds which sold tobacco products. They wanted to make a political statement and lost me as a customer for good.

    • james blue

      Do you boycott all companies making political statements, or just the ones who make political statements you don’t like?

    • Sisyphus

      Darn tootin’ no company that won’t let me clog my veins with sweet minty transfat goodness while I suck down a cigarette isn’t getting a nickel of my money!

  • Reason2012

    “But this doesn’t even begin to compare to how furious you would be if you were told you were not allowed to marry the person you love,” Ben & Jerry’s outlines.

    What about 18 year old girls that want to marry their father that they love?
    What about a man and three women who want to “marry” each other because they love each other?
    What about a 17 year old that wants to marry a 50 year old she loves?
    What about a 16 year old?
    So much for the fake deception of pretending marriage is all about being with whomever you love.
    Marriage is about a man, a woman, and in the vast majority of such a setup the possibility of a biological family.
    It was never defined as “two living things that love each other”, yet suddenly you feign offense to push your agenda.
    And then of course once marriage passes, the real goal begins: the mass indoctrination of everyone else’s kids and grandkids (because “it’s legal now”) with images and ideas of homosexual behavior, the legal assault on Christians if they do not violate their conscience and support sinful ACTS, transgenderism the next perversion to be pushed.
    It all starts with getting their foot in the door with a LAW about same-gender marriage. Learn from other places that fell for the lie it’s about “love” to now be under the constant hateful barrage of perversion indoctrination and hate.

    • Colin Rafferty

      These are all good questions. Minors aside, I don’t see why any of the consenting adults shouldn’t be able to do any of these things.

    • Parodyx

      Why do you worry so much about people urging other people to marry all the things you find offensive?

      Could YOU have been swayed by anyone telling you who you should love?

      This is what you need to know. If a person is homosexual, whether born that way or formed that way in early life, they will fall in love with someone if the same sex. They aren’t going to make a crusade out of it.

      And if a person is heterosexual, they will fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. That’s how it works. There is no “recruitment” taking place.

      • Reason2012

        And yet in public schools, everyone else’s kids and grandkids are indoctrinated with images and ideas of homosexual behavior, all because “it’s legal now”. Google homosexual kindergarten and read all about the growing number of such cases. it’s nothing BUT recruitment and indoctrination.

        • Parodyx

          If they’re “indoctrinated” – something I SERIOUSLY doubt – it’s more like they are shown that homosexuality is normal and occurs in a part of the population and they’re human beings like everyone else and can we please treat them like human beings and not taunt or shun or kill them. I fail to see what’s wrong with that message.

          As for “recruitment” – that is a flat-out lie. NO ONE can “recruit” to a sexual orientation which is fixed. And that’s why no one does.

    • james blue

      So you have same sex attractions, but are suppressing them on moral ground? In a moment of human weakness you could be tempted into a same sex rendezvous?

      I couldn’t, I’m straight. I have no say in the matter and couldn’t be convinced into being anything other than straight.

      • Reason2012

        Yet many ex-homosexuals and many current homosexual have pointed out they were the victims of homosexual-molestation at a very young age (google it). When you’re even exposed to images and ideas of homosexual behavior even as young as 5 years old (google homosexual kindergarten), you have no idea how that can potentially affect a kids’ thinking.
        Consider yourself lucky they didn’t hit your school with the perverse images and ideas when you were only 5, or younger perhaps with such images on tv that you would have no recollection of.

        • james blue

          What about girls molested by men? How do you explain homosexuals who were not molested or exposed to “images” and raised in conservative Christian homes?

          You didn’t answer the question, Could you be talked into a homosexual rendezvous in a moment of human weakness?

        • Chris

          “Yet many ex-homosexuals and many current homosexual have pointed out
          they were the victims of homosexual-molestation at a very young age
          (google it).”

          You do realise that anecdotal evidence is considered the weakest form of evidence in science don’t you? Try presenting peer reviewed studies instead.

    • Chris

      “Marriage is about a man, a woman, and in the vast majority of such a setup the possibility of a biological family.”

      Actually, traditionally marriage was about a guy and as many wives and concubines as he could afford.

      Historically the reason for marriage was to designate the union of two powerful families. Poor people didn’t get married. Historically speaking they just shacked up together.

      “It was never defined as “two living things that love each other”, yet suddenly you feign offense to push your agenda.”

      Well the idea of love being associated with marriage is a very late idea. However same sex marriage is not. There were same sex marriages in medieval China, ancient Rome, not to mention among certain Amerindian tribes and Australian aboriginal tribes, etc.

      • Reason2012

        Actually, traditionally marriage was about a guy and as many wives and concubines as he could afford.

        In each case a man with a woman. And again, only for rich rulers, not your every day average person.

        Historically the reason for marriage was to designate the union of two powerful families.

        Again, only for rich people – not your ever day average person. Most people did it to raise families with the person of the opposite_sex they loved.

        Poor people didn’t get married. Historically speaking they just shacked up together.

        Marriage is a covenant, where two become one flesh – a man and a woman are the only ones who can do this (biology). No ceremony or government certificate is necessary – except to deal with legal aspects after the fact.

        Well the idea of love being associated with marriage is a very late idea. However same sex marriage is not. There were same sex marriages

        No, there was homosexual “shacking up”, incapable of becoming one flesh, as the_anus is not use for such thing. They’re not marriages as marriage was defined by God long before mankind tried to pervert it and call it something else – and every time one man and one woman come together in such a covenant, that’s a marriage no matter what laws societies historically tried to have.

        • Chris

          “In each case a man with a woman.”

          In Hawaii the queen had a number of husbands.

          “And again, only for rich rulers, not your every day average person.”

          Well it could be a rich merchant as well. As I wrote previously, you could traditionally have as many wives as you could afford. The poor couldn’t afford more than one.

          When I wrote “Historically the reason for marriage was to designate the union of two powerful families.”

          “Again, only for rich people – not your ever day average person. Most people
          did it to raise families with the person of the opposite_sex they loved.”

          We don’t have any data on whether people actually loved the one they were shacked up with. The poor didn’t get married.

          “Marriage is a covenant, where two become one flesh – a man and a woman are the
          only ones who can do this (biology). No ceremony or government certificate is necessary – except to deal with legal aspects after the fact.”

          That’s YOUR understanding of marriage. Marriage down through the centuries has had a number of definitions.

          “No, there was homosexual “shacking up”, incapable of becoming one flesh, as the_anus is not use for such thing.”

          Anal intercourse is enjoyed by both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. But what has the type of intercourse couples enjoy got to do with whether they love each other or not? As long as its consensual what business is it of anyone?

          “They’re not marriages as marriage was defined by God long before mankind tried to pervert it and call it something else …”

          Actually an author gave a definition of marriage and said it was from God. You don’t know whether it is or not. You BELIEVE it is.

          “- and every time one man and one woman come together in such a covenant,
          that’s a marriage no matter what laws societies historically tried to have.”

          Ah so you’re admitting that historically same sex marriages have existed throughout history. Progress. 🙂

    • SFBruce

      That’s quite a list. In some states, a 17 year-old can legally marry someone who is 50. In some states, those who are 16 years old can marry with parental consent. As far as marrying one’s parent is concerned, the state already recognizes a legal relationship between the two. That said, I have no doubt that marriage will continue to change, as it has since its inception. Personally, I know of now compelling reason why any of the relations you detail should be able to marry. However, if you disagree, file a lawsuit and see what happens.

      • Reason2012

        . Personally, I know of now compelling reason why any of the relations you detail should be able to marry.

        Precisely the point – being against others who love each other wanting to marry while claiming bigots are against those who love each other wanting to marry.

        To not allow all perversions to be called marriage is to expose the hypocrisy of them pretending that “love” is the end all, while doing the very thing they attack others for doing: pointing out some cases are not a marriage.

        • Chris

          To keep calling something a perversion, merely because you don’t like it IS rather closed minded.

          Additionally, as I’ve previously pointed out, the relationships that you’ve mentioned would be ok ethically provided that something is done to eliminate the risk of inherited genetic abnormality. And as long as both parties are adults and able to give legal consent. If that’s the case then they should go for it.

          Now you were saying?

    • Peter Leh

      “What about 18 year old girls that want to marry their father that they love?”

      Which modern country allows this?

      “What about a man and three women who want to “marry” each other because they love each other?”

      Like Issac? David? Abram married his half Sister…. and made a great nation, no?

      “What about a 17 year old that wants to marry a 50 year old she loves?”

      Legal in many countries. Even in America

      “What about a 16 year old?”

      Same

      • Reason2012

        Which modern country allows this?

        Why shouldn’t they? Don’t you activists always claim that two adults who “love each other” are only denied by bigots their “right” to get married? So what’s your objection to an 18 year old girl (an adult) and her dad?

        • Chris

          “Why shouldn’t they?”

          Well if they have kids the chance for genetic abnormality is rather high. Additionally, due to the power disparity, the question of consent must be raised.

          “Don’t you activists always claim that two adults
          who “love each other” are only denied by bigots their “right” to get
          married?”

          Legal consent would have to be involved as well. And any possible inherited genetic abnormality. But hey if they both want to be sterilized then I say they should go for it.

          I don’t see why any Christians would object to such a thing. Abraham married his half-sister after all.

        • Peter Leh

          Um… again. Which country allows this?

  • Trilemma

    Can I get a scoop of chocolate and a scoop of chocolate that identifies as vanilla?

    • Peter Leh

      Yep.

      And… funny

    • Tenstron

      Haha – well played

  • Sven

    Same as Starbucks. High price and low satisfaction.

  • Nidalap

    They may have a slightly inflated view of the importance of their product to their customer base…

    • Chris

      They’re just keeping the issue alive to the average Aussie. Best of luck to them.

  • “Love is that we live according to God’s commandments.” 2 John 1:6

    Christianity is all about love. Subvert the meaning of “love” and you subvert Christianity.

    • Colin Rafferty

      Are you saying that all non Christians are in false marriages, since they aren’t based on God’s commandments?

      • God(!) is saying that love means that we live according to God’s commandments. (2 John 1:6)

        • Colin Rafferty

          Is that a yes or no? If I’m in a male/female marriage, but I’m not Christian, is it a real marriage, or fake?

          Seriously, I’m trying to understand if your worry about subversion is about same-gender marriages, or any non-Christian marriage.

          • You are trying to subvert the very Word of God to make it fit to some degenerate libertarian filth, and your weasel-like sophistry will lead you straight to hell.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, I’m actually trying to understand your original comment about love. It seems like you are saying that it is not love unless you follow God’s commandments. Is that the case?

            Because if so, that would mean that a Hindu marriage would be a subversion of Christianity, correct?

      • Chet

        No, no Sir, as long as they are male and female in the union. I was once unsaved and on my way to Hell, yet, I wasn’t in violation of God’s specific definition of what constitutes marriage… Ungodly, couldn’t care less folks yet understand that marriage is between male and female regardless of this new man devised situation of same…

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    May they never sell two scoops of same flavor again until the Kingdom comes. Legalization of same sex “marriage” equals legal persecutions on all moral people. Western whites should stop demanding mankind to endorse Sodomy. When will they stop trying to control mankind with something evil? Enough of boredom’s atrocity by the well-fed people.

    • Dianne

      Grace, STOP DENEGRATING PEOPLE ACCORDING TO RACE YOU EVIL SOUTH KOREAN WOMAN!!! Now how does that feel when I made your race and nationality an issue? GOD HATES YOUR RACIAL BIGOTRY! Hate the SIN but NOT THE SINNER or you are just a ” FLY IN THE OINTMENT “.

  • Peter Leh

    Wait…. The Aussies have not legalized SSM? They are more Liberal than the US!

    • Tangent002

      Not really, no. There’s a very strong streak of social Conservatism and xenophobia down under.

      • Peter Leh

        Interesting….

      • Chris

        Painfully true. Every poll however shows an overwhelming majority in favour of legalizing SSMs. It’s just that the current government lives in dread of the religious right in Australia. Strange when you consider that the religious right in Australia is far, far weaker then in the US.

  • Tangent002

    Well, whaddaya know, another company for One Million Moms to boycott.

  • Chet

    My, how awfully foolish…

  • Dianne

    Ben & Jerry can keep their ice cream along with their FILTHY and PERVERTED RHETORIC. I started BOYCOTTING them Starbucks and Target a long time ago. Stand strong against this lascivious lifestyle Australia and defend HOLY MATRIMONY BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMEN and I say ” God speed!!!”

  • The General

    “Love comes in all flavors.”

    Yep, in a few years it will be the adult/child flavor. And we’ll be called “bigots” because we “discriminate.”