Brisbane's social media community have voiced a loud call to boycott a large coffee chain following the revelation that Gloria Jeans gave $30,000 to the Australian Christian Lobby.

The coffee chain, Gloria Jeans, confirmed it paid for advertising at an Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) leaders' debate in the lead up to the 2010 federal election, when the ACL was lobbying the government to oppose same sex marriage.

Businesses have long donated to political parties and lobby groups in Australia but it has raised the question of whose beliefs are we funding before we buy a product?

The RipNRoll Campaign's Michael James explains that some people in Brisbane are turning their back on Gloria Jeans because they feel deceived.

"When the public find out that this anti-GLBT organisation is being funded by a major corporation where people go to every day for their morning coffee, of course they're going to be upset because they're investing their money in someone that's turning around and investing that money in hate and they don't want to be a part of that."

Gloria Jeans has released a statement saying it gave a one off donation and does not discriminate.

Spokesperson for the ACL, Jim Wallace says the donation from Gloria Jeans was only for advertising at an event.

"It wasn't a donation. It was advertising at the Make It Count event which was the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader speaking to Christian leaders and broadcast right throughout the country."

Mr Wallace says the ACL is bewildered and angry about the public controversy: "I think it's despicable and I think it just represents this unequal hold that the gay activists have on the press, the way they're able to turn anything against those who protect marriage".

The ABC's Religion and Ethics Editor, Scott Stephens, explains why Gloria Jeans is the latest victim of public boycotting: "Increasingly you're hearing political leaders being addressed quite forthrightly with the question `where do you stand on gay marriage?' in much the same way as two years ago the question was `where do you stand on climate change?'.

"So, for many people this is a kind of political and even moral litmus test. And precisely because of the feverishness of the debate, because there's so much moral and political investment in it, it does mean there's going to be collateral damage and anybody who's associated with whichever is regarded as being the wrong side of the debate can get so easily caught up within it".