Death Threats Target YOGURT Shop

A bowl of creamy dessert topped with fresh strawberries and a drizzle of jam

A small Christian frozen-yogurt shop near Spokane says it’s been hit with death threats for putting Bible verses and a memorial sticker honoring Charlie Kirk on its cups.

Story Snapshot

Grooveberries Frozen Yogurt in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, added tribute stickers after Kirk’s September 2025 assassination, pairing his image with Scripture.
Owners Chase and Sarah Gibson say the tribute triggered hate mail, online harassment, and death threats, including hostile reviews and direct messages.
The shop also reports a tense in-store confrontation; a longer-form interview describes an “assault” claim, though public details remain limited.
Despite the backlash, the business reports a surge of support and sales, with a portion of themed merchandise proceeds going to Kirk’s widow.

What the tribute is—and why the owners say it matters

Grooveberries Frozen Yogurt, a family-run shop in Coeur d’Alene near Spokane, began placing Charlie Kirk tribute stickers on frozen-yogurt cups after his assassination in September 2025. Reporting says the stickers show Kirk’s image and “1993–2025,” and later expanded to include Bible verses. The Gibsons describe the move primarily as an act of Christian witness, not a marketing stunt, and they’ve continued the tribute as attention grows.

Chase and Sarah Gibson have said their shop’s identity is rooted in faith, and they viewed Kirk—known nationally for promoting Christianity and pushing back on “woke” politics—as someone worth honoring publicly. They also tied the tribute to giving: coverage describes stickers and apparel being sold, with 25% of related sales donated to Kirk’s widow Erika through a “blueberry budget” effort, tracked through a defined time window.

Threats, harassment, and the social-media pressure campaign

Multiple reports describe a wave of backlash after the tribute became visible. The Gibsons say they received death threats by email and in handwritten mail, and that critics used online reviews to label them with extreme slurs and demand the business be punished. Some of the harassment described was aimed at intimidating the owners into removing the stickers. The reporting also notes efforts to get reviews removed through Meta, highlighting how platform moderation becomes part of the fight.

The public claims include an in-store confrontation in which a customer allegedly refused to leave after expressing discomfort with the tribute. A YouTube interview goes further and describes an “assault” allegation connected to that confrontation, with references to police involvement. However, the available research does not include independent documentation such as a police report number or body-cam footage. What is clear from the coverage is that the family believes the hostility is real and ongoing.

Community response: increased sales and a message about speech

While the threats raise serious safety questions, the shop also reports a significant counter-reaction: supportive customers increased purchases and helped the store expand orders of tribute stickers. Coverage describes themed items “flying off shelves,” suggesting that a segment of the community is deliberately spending money there as a show of solidarity. In practical terms, that support helps a small business absorb the reputational damage that online mob tactics can inflict.

Sarah Gibson is quoted arguing that people should see how political disagreement is being handled, framing the harassment as an attempt to silence viewpoints tied to Christianity and conservative ideas. The reporting also includes praise from conservative commentators who describe the tribute as “refreshing” and say honoring a husband and father should not provoke threats. Even without broader national polling in the research, the pattern is familiar: controversy spreads, platforms amplify it, and ordinary businesses become targets.

Why this story hits a constitutional nerve for many Americans

This case centers on a basic American question: whether citizens can express faith and political beliefs in public without intimidation. Nothing in the reporting suggests Grooveberries called for violence or broke the law; the described act was memorializing a public figure and adding Scripture. If the response truly includes death threats and coordinated harassment, that’s not “accountability”—it’s coercion. For conservatives wary of institutional pressure campaigns, it reads like a warning about how quickly speech can be policed by mobs.

Key factual gaps remain. The research does not provide the exact date of Kirk’s assassination beyond “September 2025,” nor does it provide independent verification of the most severe claims from the YouTube interview. Still, the core elements are consistent across sources: a Christian tribute went up, threats and hate followed, and the community response also brought a business surge. The next critical question is whether local law enforcement and platforms treat credible threats with the seriousness they demand.