“Up For Whatever”: Bud Light and Other Companies are Facing Resilient Boycotts Over Media Campaigns


Below is my Hill column on the growing backlash of consumers against companies like Anheuser-Busch for controversial media campaigns.  For a brand with a slogan of “Up For Whatever,” Bud Light may not be up for the meltdown unfolding across the country. The company is now effectively giving away beer due to plunging sales. It is not good when your brand comes synonymous with self-destructive marketing. “Bud Lighting” is now being used as a verb, noun, and present participle. When Miller Lite produced a controversial ad to attract women, it was accused of “Bud Lighting” itself. Bud Light has now joined names like Bork (as in “Borked” nominees) or Gerry (as in Gerrymandering) that became negative verbs or nouns. That is hardly good news when you are hoping to be known for your beer.

Here is the column:

At a recent baseball game, I watched a fellow Cubs fan facing a dilemma at Nationals Park in Washington. No, it wasn’t the dilemma of whether to cheer another meltdown by a Cubs pitcher — it was the beer vendor, who was handing him a Bud Light. The vendor had only Bud Lights left…for a good reason. The company is now literally giving away beer for free due to a consumer backlash.

With a pained look, the obviously thirsty fan declined and headed for the concourse looking for another brand. Bud Light was dead to him after the controversy over a promotion featuring transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney. The Cubs fan isn’t alone. Bud Light’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch, has reportedly lost nearly $19 billion since this controversy began.

Recently, I was at a function where a guest asked a bartender if he had anything other than Miller Light. He told me that he dropped the brand after Miller Light ran an advertisement titled “Bad $#!T to Good $#!T,” denouncing past male-oriented beer ads as “sh*t” for objectifying women.

Various writers dismissed the boycott against Bud Light and said that the company had to just “hold the line” because it would fade and fail. It hasn’t.

But something is happening that has taken experts by surprise. Consumers appear to be holding the line against a growing number of brands.

The response raises tough legal and business questions over companies launching campaigns viewed as political rather than commercial. On one hand, the objections to trans figures or products threaten a type of erasure of this part of our society. On the other hand, consumers are increasingly pushing back against what they see as heavy-handed marketing of causes. In the middle, often, are shareholders.

The Los Angeles Dodgers are now being boycotted by Catholics after the company invited an anti-Catholic drag queen group to be honored at a Pride Night event.

Target is being boycotted over its Pride line of merchandise, including selling “tuck-friendly” swimwear, among other items. The company is being slammed for hiring a transgender artist, Erik Carnell, who is famous for his Satan-loving products, to create the line. Target is now down $9 billion.

I support Target or companies selling pride products or items geared toward trans customers. However, some of these campaigns appear more than efforts to reach new pockets of consumers. Putting aside those with clear prejudices against a given group, some consumers are reacting to campaigns that appear to push political or social agendas rather than products.

As shown by Disney and its ongoing fight with Florida, corporations are now committed to political and social reform campaigns. While companies once eschewed political or social causes that would alienate consumers or damage their brands, executives are increasingly tying their brands to identity politics and controversial positions.

Some, like Disney, North Face and Nike, have doubled down in the face of backlash. Nike publicly shamed its customers for objecting to its use of Mulvaney to sell sports bras, telling them that they needed to be “kind” and “inclusive” and to stop yielding to “hate speech, bullying, or other behaviors.”

Even though most of these companies will likely weather the storm, there is no question that these campaigns are reducing sales and changing the perception of these brands.

As private companies, they have every right to take these stances. Likewise, customers have every right to express their disagreement by seeking alternative products. The only other interested parties are the shareholders, who are faced with lower share values and higher losses.

Shareholders can demand an accounting from these companies. Indeed, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) advocates have often sued companies for failing to be more aggressive in reaching diversity goals. Companies like Facebook, Oracle, Danaher, Qualcomm, Gap and NortonLifeLock have been sued over the failure to reach greater goals of diversity.

Shareholders may allege a breach of the “duty of loyalty” in pursuing such campaigns, but it is a very difficult standard to meet. You have to show that executives are not just acting recklessly, but doing so in a self-interested manner or in bad faith. Alternatively, they can argue a breach of the “duty of care,” which requires a showing that the officials acted in a grossly negligent manner.

It is doubtful that such litigation would succeed. However, shareholders can generally force greater transparency on the scope and costs of these campaigns.

There is a tendency to treat executives responsible for these campaigns as irrational activists. After all, Alissa Heinerscheid, vice president of marketing for Bud Light, may have cost the company billions after pledging to drop Bud Light’s “fratty reputation and embrace inclusivity.”

She certainly succeeded in changing the entire view of the brand in less than a year on the job. Heinerscheid knew that the brand image sells the beer. That image is now unpalatable for many consumers. The social value of these campaigns is lost if consumers reject beer with the branding message.

It is not clear how these losses will impact social messaging through branding, but shareholders will have little influence. These executives are rational actors. While these campaigns may alienate consumers and even reduce profits, they offer personal and professional benefits for senior employees who make DEI policies a priority. The campaigns are the bona fides for executives in seeking opportunities and greater status. While Heinerscheid was put on leave during the meltdown, these campaigns are a net gain for most executives. More importantly, speaking against such campaigns out of concern for the brand is a high-risk move for any executive who does not want to be labeled insensitive or unenlightened.

There is a theory for an analogous phenomenon. It is called Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, wherein everyone acts for their immediate benefit and everyone ultimately starves as a consequence.

Hardin showed how rational actors can continue to act for their own short-term benefit, even if it means destroying the very resource that everyone relies upon to survive in the long term. “The inherent logic of the commons,” he wrote, “remorselessly generates tragedy.”

This is why executives will continue to pursue DEI campaigns regardless of their cost or the loss of consumers. Consumers seem to sense this “inherent logic,” and they are responding with the one means available to change the calculus. Companies will have to find a path through this morass with marketing that is inclusive and edgy without being political or proselytizing. There may also be increased shareholder litigation over these losses.

In the interim, Bud Light has become the unenviable vehicle for consumers to show that they are tired of companies’ virtue-signaling and social agendas. In this perverse market, the least objectionable brand may prevail when the beer guy comes around at the ballpark.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University.

137 thoughts on ““Up For Whatever”: Bud Light and Other Companies are Facing Resilient Boycotts Over Media Campaigns”

  1. Below, Reagan’s whatever says:

    If the Catholic Church is going to oppose the LA Dodgers, shouldn’t they also oppose officials that support the death penalty, optional war and Invitro Fertilization?

    Suppose the Dodgers promote an antisemitic hate group, and an association of Jewish synagogues complains because of the Jew-hating that’s involved. Does that mean the Jewish organization is somehow being hypocritical unless it also “opposes all officials” who take stances on social issues with which Judaism disagrees?

    The question answers itself. And it stands to reason that the Catholic church already “opposes officials” taking such stances, at least to the extent of those stances. Notice he doesn’t name any specific officials the Catholic church is failing to “oppose” but he thinks they should be opposing.

  2. The anti-woke backlash and boycotts are NOT specifically about Trans ideology.

    There are the predictable negative response to the fiscally irresponsible concept of ESG.

    There is a single legitimate metric for evaluating a company – its financial performance.

    That alone is its duty. Adhering to that duty is what actually delivers, even delivers on virtue signaling.

    Companies will claim to be patriotic – if patriotism is what their consumers want to here.

    If AHB customers were trans advocates – the Mulvaney can would have been a huge success.

    Business can NOT get ahead of its customers values.

    Separately, though this was likely coming regardless, AHB near perfectly triggered this and as such is at the center of the storm.

    The left long ago and properly won the issue of minority rights. It is just morally wrong to deny others the rights you have yourself because of their sexual preferences.

    But the left has gone too far – as it always does. Their is a giant gulf between – you have a right to get married, and you can FORCE me to make your wedding cake. And an even bigger gulf when you try to interject a minority ideology into everything.

    Niche companies can afford and even thrive by leading culture – or leading backlashes. But mass market companies MUST avoid alienating consumers more than anything.

    Finally, AHB has given the overwhelming majority of americans Pissed off at the lefts destruction of their country and their values a way to express their voice.

    AHB had about 5 minutes to fix the Bud Light mistake. They missed that. Instead they have created a movement and EASY means for people to express their displeasure.

    You claimed that Target had a “right” to market as it pleases – that is not true. As I said at the start – the first and only value of business, is profits for owners.
    As Adam Smith noted 250 years ago – it is the self interest of others that we must appeal to induce them to meet our wants and needs.

    Targets DUTY is to shareholder value – while Sharehold lawsuits may not as you note succeed, as value collapses investors will flee, and that is far more punishment than the courts can meet out.

    AHB has lost 19B in value – that dramatically reduces its ability to borrow, to spend, that would be meaningless if it is transitory. If customers rush back the value of the company will return. But as we have seen with Disney – that is not happening. AHB has lost something like 20% of its value in a few months.
    Disney has lost almost half its value in 18 months. This will take decades to recover from.

    Regardless, a huge segment of the people are sending a message – and if you think it is about trans, you are mistaken.

    AHB opened the floodgates. the “silent majority” has found its voice – and it is LOUD AND CLEAR

    1. @John Say

      I agree with what you’re saying. Most who are boycotting, while the far left will call them transphobic, they are not.
      Most people could care less if an adult wants to self mutilate their body and identify as the opposite sex.

      What people do have a problem with is the ESG agenda and shoving their views down our throats and then complaining that we don’t like it and we are at fault because we don’t agree with them.

      The issue though… the decision to launch the products was made months ago. Some buyer decided on their spring summer clothing back in the fall of last year.
      And then there’s the marketing. Its not that they are selling the product, but that they are pushing out as a main theme.

      Now lets do a reality check.
      AB Is down from their highs. But have found support at the current stock price. So while we can say look at the billions lost… they aren’t really down from 3 month ago prices.

      That’s not to say that there isn’t a long term trend or that they are down from their most important season.(Summer) Followed by Football.

      These stores have few options.

      And the boards have to address their activist shareholders.

      This is more of a backlash against ESG and not anyone about to perpetrate a hate crime.


      1. AHB has seen a TINY increase in their stock price over memorial
        Day weekend. That is inconsequential. There is no way to tell if they have stablized at this time.

        I agree with what you have said – but this is much broader.

        I do not think what we are seeing is even mostly about LGBTQ. Or ESG – though it points out the flaws and failure of ESG

        AHB and not others have created the oportuntiy for the “silent majority” to express their anger.

        This is an “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore” moment.

        And that is one of the real problems for AHB and Target and … They have made themselves into a pinatand they alled for everything that people are angry about but can not speak openly without being “cancelled”.

        I suspect that is also why these protest appear to have legs.
        There is nothing AHB can do to fix the problem.

        Worse especially for AHB – Beer is a commodity that people stick to their prefence – until they don’t.
        At this time Bud Light drinkers that have left, are not likely coming back.

        Target can probably eventually get their customers back.

        AHB grabbed the Tar baby and they can not get unstuck.

        I do not drink beer so this is academic to me.

        I am more fascinated at what this indicates for politics.

  3. If the Catholic Church is going to oppose the LA Dodgers, shouldn’t they also oppose officials that support the death penalty, optional war and Invitro Fertilization?

    Supposedly all sins are equal and all people do it. It was not intended as a weapon for haters to use against unpopular people.

    1. I suppose they would if the Dodgers had “Celebrate Death Penalty” Night. So your point is they should remove all of their convictions because they spoke out against a vile useless group that makes a mockery of nuns?

      1. re: Jim22

        I respect most points of view, even those views not supported.

        My point is if you claim to follow Jesus, you can’t cherrypick only the parts that agree with your political party. The “holier than thou” attitude seems to contradict Christianity.

        I think maybe George Washington had it right. When political parties divide Americans and create more harm than good – time to do away with political parties altogether. Don’t justify hate using religion.

        1. The “holier than thou” attitude seems to contradict Christianity.

          What are you even talking about? For the Catholic Church to object to an anti-Catholic hate group has nothing whatever to do with “holier than thou.” You, sir, are the one who is “holier than thou” in this discussion as you arrogantly accuse others of “cherry-picking.”

  4. Our last real Christian president (in deeds not rhetoric) Jimmy Carter likely would have supported Jesus’ actions of embracing outcasts. Carter likely would reject hate driven actions toward unpopular people.

    Not that long ago many of these haters attacked Cheerios cereal for showing an interracial married couple (legal since 1967). Cheerios responded by then creating a commercial featuring same-sex couples! Never bow down to bullies!

    Viewing a commercial doesn’t require anyone to adopt that lifestyle! Why be so scared of individual freedoms?

    1. That is a load of crap. It is not the commercial or even the products they choose to sale. It is the social agenda and forcing of their views onto those who do not agree. You and anyone with your view are seeing it backwards of the reality. I and others like me do not care one bit how you or anyone else lives their lives. I do not hate or dislike anyone for their choices. But nobody should expect me to adopt it as normal, or let you teach your views to my children who should be raised with my values and not yours. The problem is the people who believe in letting people be themselves are not the ones forcing their views on others. The very people who say equality and choice to all are the ones who do not allow traditional values to be held as part of that.

    2. What individual freedom is sexualizing children for your own perverted needs? Jimmy Carter would have most likely been against gay marriage and not protecting children from sexual predators.

    3. “Never bow down to bullies!”

      Which is what we are doing when we call you by your actual biological sex. YOU are the bully when you believe in compelled speech.

    4. Reagan’s Unenforced Torture, you should stop planting Cheerios in your garden. They will not grow Bagels while your intellect will be further stunted.

    5. The positive moral duties imposed by christianity PROPERLY belong in religion – not government. The first amendment separation of church and state is more than about “religion”. It is about the FACT that the imposition of positive moral duties has no place in govenrment.

      Charity has no place in government.
      It is a religious duty not a governmental one.
      It is one you are free to do on your own.
      You are NOT free to FORCE onto others.

      The social contract that underpins government says nothing about embracing outcasts – Christianity does.

      I happen to think Carter was a far better president than he was credited. He was the most deregulatory president in US history.
      He also made the right choices in response to Stagflation – choices that cost him re-election, choices that Reagan was wise enough to continue.

    6. Viewing a commercial does not require adopting a lifestyle.

      At the same time there is no RIGHT to FORCE a commercial on anyone.

      The duty of companies – the ONLY duty is to profit their shareholders.
      Nearly always that REQUIRES giving customers what they want.

      You can run whatever commercial you want. That commercial is a FAILURE – if it inspires me to change channel and/or change beer.

      The only Fear of freedom is YOURS.
      You are afraid that without power – you can not FORCE your views on lifestyle on others.

      You are free to F#$K a duck. You are not free to FORCE others to watch you. You are not free to FORCE others to hire you afterwords. You are not free to FORCE others to pay homage to Duck F#$King.

      You have taken over many of the levers of power in this country.
      You are learning that control over the government, the media, social media is NOT control over people, of their minds.

      If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
      Joseph Goebels.

      Businessses are free to advertise as they please.
      The rest of us are free to change the channel, and change what we buy.

  5. “As private companies, they have every right to take these stances.”

    Indeed, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) advocates have often sued companies for failing to be more aggressive in reaching diversity goals. Companies like Facebook, Oracle, Danaher, Qualcomm, Gap and NortonLifeLock have been sued over the failure to reach greater goals of diversity.”

    Is it me, or do these two statements not agree with each other. If I have a business and have the right to take a stance, how and for what can I be sued?

    1. I don’t believe that there’s a disconnect between those 2 statements, as the implications of the first lead directly to the outcome in the second. And, the direction a company decides upon should be clearly stated by them – and that would directly affect who might pursue suing them and why.

      However, I noticed that he said they’d been “sued” for “failing to be more aggressive reaching diversity goals”, but he NOT did say they’d been sued SUCCESSFULLY for that… Whereas, companies being sued for not fulfilling their “duty” to provide promised returns on investment to stockholders HAVE.

      We’re going to see more and more of this “diversity” pushing by companies, especially the biggest, as the implementation of the grotesque ESG scores built upon lies and blatant discrimination are what this is really all about. ESG scores are the “western” version of Chinese social credit scores, and will be used – if we let this happen – to determine who gets to buy what, and how many, and when, and how much you pay for it.

  6. Budweiser would only have faced a short term boycott without much punch if their VP of Marketing had not found it necessary to double down and insult their customer base. She made it clear that she (and by extension the company) no longer wanted those customers. The customers can hardly be blamed for taking them at their word and abandoning their product.

    1. Maybe but I doubt it. Something the consumer puts into their mouths, beverage or food, never should be advertised in a bathroom. Not only is Mulvaney mocking and insulting women, but, c’mon… really — he’s a disgusting little visage in a bathtub getting soap bubbles all in the product. The only thing that could have made it worse would have been to include a toilet in the picture. So it’s more than a boycott, although that too. They memorably and permanently destroyed their brand image and made it, not just politically but literally nauseating.

  7. Corporations (corporate executives) as well as other entities are being blackmailed by the globalist banking cabal and affiliated “elites”, WEF, Bilderberg, etc. into demonstrating high DEI scores or else their access to financial backing and investment will suffer. It is a form of “social credit scoring”. We have allowed firms managing corporate and government investments and pensions — notably BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, among others — to wield enormous power by indirectly becoming major shareholders controlling each other and the international business of the world. This has been a slow creep for many years that has reached critical mass suddenly. The Marxist identity politics is one prong of what is going on with the intent to infiltrate, control, and then create misery, chaos, destablization, and ultimate destruction of western institutions (political, academic, religious, and corporate) and western governments in favor of a “new world order” akin to feudalism.

    For an excellent explanation of “Marxism” see https://youtu.be/y6rk1mYiOAw .

    Marxism, however, is just one means being emplyed to the same old end goal: control of the vast majority of populations by anointed elites. A means to an end. A means that uses propaganda to create chaos, destroy, and turn identity groups against each other. It preys on people’s stupidity, fear, envy, and wish to belong. Also see re language manipulation, Orwell.

    The end result isn’t what “Marxism” preaches. (Why it “fails”).Traditionally oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships, and totalitarian feudal societies have come about as the result of war. Doing this outright by force to national strongholds such as the U.S. and Europe is not feasible until havoc is wreaked and these world-dominating nations are first substantially weakened.

    SImultaneous techniques include recent “emergency” measures, e.g. W.H.O. recent pandemic “treaty” to give us more along the lines of the covid lockdowns, tyranny and economic destruction. Also see the green crap that convinces useful tools who “believe” in environmental activism as well as outright theft of taxpayer funds for corporate green welfare. But not just encionmental actists — it is all of them; A coopting ot “well-intentioned” movements (explained in the above youtube.)

    We are in an existential war. It just hasn’t gone “hot” yet, and thus hasn’t become obvious to even scholars who focus on narrow aspects of what is going on, whether that be economics, or law, or the culture, or economics, or our “inexplicably” off-the-rails corruption of academic and scientific research, or the crazy bias in the print, video, and entertainment media, or the control of free speech and speech platforms, or the also “inexplicable” leadership failure in our now infiltrated and/or propagandized military, political and judicial institutions. Please get a bird’s eye view. We have very little time left and need to stop with the navel contemplating and head-scratching.

    To paraphase Heminway: it happened gradually, then all of a sudden.

  8. “I support Target or companies selling pride products or items geared toward trans customers. However, some of these campaigns appear more than efforts to reach new pockets of consumers.”
    Not me. This so-called “new pockets of consumers” equals kids. That’s an abomination and what parents are outraged about. It’s pure perversion sponsored by these woke companies. You can guild it all you like but its gone from tolerating perversion to advocating perversion as a “healthy” choice for your kids. You’d do well to heed the recent elections in Turkey, Sweden and Italy to see that this LGBT Revolution has reached the Counter Revolutionary phase. It’s all a repeat of history of course.

    You can’t have read a Bible anytime in your lifetime and not recognized the parallels between our society and that of the failing ancient Roman Empire. We know what happened there. Pual tells us in the Letter to the Romans:

    18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

    25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

  9. And I thought taking Fortran in college was useless. This AI stuff is surreal, creepy and alas it shows Joe Biden in the most animated way ever. Soooooo fake. Yo go gurl!!!


  10. Please pass some of these links along to others.

    VIDEO: Ex UN Executive Director Exposes Child Trafficking of Globalist Elite


    May 29, 2023
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    In a shocking revelation, former executive director of the United Nations Global Sustainable Index Institute Calin Georgescu exposed how oligarchs who control the world are tied to the scores of children who go missing each year with no trace.


  11. The Bud Light boycott has legs because Mulvaney was fresh off of a skit making fools of every woman in America. THEN he pivoted to Bud Light.
    I applaud Mulvaney’s stupid vicious parody as the fuse that may have finally blown up “Woke”. Women should be ashamed of their silent acceptance of having their faces pushed in the mud by a tranny wannabe.

  12. I’ve given up my subscriptions to both AAAS and Scientific American because of their political beliefs stated as scientific facts. The Tragedy of the Commons is an attack on free market Capitalism.

  13. Why does everything have to be “in your face”? Some people need certain products–you can do a google search and find what stores sell them. Do it. Northface I did not buy because they boycotted selling their product to a petroleum based company who wanted to buy Northface jackets for their employees for Christmas. Pensley’s spice I don’t buy because they decided that they don’t need Trump supporters. A knitting webiste doesn’t like Trump but it is okay to post anti-Trump designs but don’t say a word about other politicians, you’ll be banned. On January 6, 2021, the speech was on unity–from the same side that spent the prior 4+ years (from the day the winner was announced in the 2016 election) dividing the country. There is an undercurrent of divisiveness that has bubbled up. The other day as we were driving by a gas station and it was noted that the gas prices are going up for the summer travel season. Someone felt there is nothing we can do about it–I said we have that opportunity every 4 years.

    1. There are plenty of things people can do everyday. For one there’s all kinds beer brands to buy other then those young school age kid AzzRaping Supporters/Encourgers/Pedos.

      Where in the hell are those corporations in supporting outfits like below???


  14. Just as private companies may pander to and even actively promote whatever political and social causes their executive leadership wishes, so may their customers voice disagreement enough to take their business elsewhere. So long as people remain free and able to vote with their money, private companies should be mindful not to unduly provoke the sensibilities of any of their customers. In a country near evenly divided on so many cultural issues, it’s a mark of extreme hubris for any one company to think it can do otherwise while believing it cannot possibly lose upwards to half of its business. Such a company needs to remember that breaking points of its customers are too often not made readily clear. They can occur long before any damage is first realized. There’s a quote about women that may serve to suffice: “You’ll know when she reaches her breaking point. She’ll no longer argue with you, instead she’ll just give you her silence.”

  15. The bottom line no one is willing to acknowledge is: consumers are done rolling over for agendas that attack our families and children. I don’t care what product or organization, we have had enough and this is the only way we have of voicing our frustration with the abuse heaped upon us from DEI to social scores to government edicts. They have a perfect right to their corporate opinion and responsibility to their investors but we are just done.

Leave a Reply