It seems like outrage over Starbucks cups is almost as much of a holiday tradition as crowded malls, Mariah Carey and sappy movie marathons.

The coffee giant released a commercial earlier this month that showed different people enjoying the holidays, including two women who were obviously in love.

The ad was released in conjunction with a new cup that’s also creating a buzz. Among other holiday motifs, it features two hands that could conceivably belong to a same-sex couple.

Starbucks came under fire last holiday season when it made cups that were green instead of red, so the scene was set for some good old-fashioned Twitter outrage:

The new Starbucks cup has lesbian couple on it. Rom 1:26 “because of this,God gave them over to shameful lust”... — Jimmy H Peralez (@h_peralez) November 2, 2017

Some tweets were more tongue-in-cheek:

I can’t tell the genders of the people holding hands, on this cup, could be an abomination, better not risk it. 🤣 — Linda Edgar (@syboneze) November 12, 2017

And then there were those who went all in on the “gay agenda” theory ― as a good thing:

I'm going to be buying tons of Starbucks if indeed their cups are pushing the gay agenda. — Christian Kiefer (@xiankiefer) November 17, 2017

So can I check off "Ruin Christmas with Starbucks cups" on my Gay Agenda? pic.twitter.com/T13hMnJtJc — MeltLikeButta (@jwbutta) November 17, 2017

By gay agenda do they mean pushing the idea of equal rights, fairness, not being discriminated against for sexual orientation? If that's the case, I'm all for it Starbucks, push away..... — GrumpyBlueEagle (@williamarndt) November 17, 2017

BuzzFeed asked Starbucks if the hands on its holiday cup belonged to a heterosexual couple or a same-sex one.

The company replied with a statement that seemed purposely vague:

“Each year during the holidays we aim to bring our customers an experience that inspires the spirit of the season, and we will continue to embrace and welcome customers from all backgrounds and religions in our stores around the world.”

It seems there’s only one response to that response: