Advertisement
‘Bud lighting’ and the role of business in America | Letters
Here’s what readers are saying in Saturday’s letters to the editor.
 
The country's largest advocacy group for LGBTQ+ rights has suspended its benchmark equality and inclusion rating for Anheuser-Busch, citing the beer company's handling of hate-filled and transphobic backlash received after its partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in April.
The country's largest advocacy group for LGBTQ+ rights has suspended its benchmark equality and inclusion rating for Anheuser-Busch, citing the beer company's handling of hate-filled and transphobic backlash received after its partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in April. [ MATT SLOCUM | AP ]
Published June 3, 2023

Short memories

‘Bud Lighting’ isn’t stopping any time soon | Column, June 1

Columnist Jonah Goldberg states that “America will be better for it” if corporations retreat from politics. This is just another reminder of the short memory of some conservatives who forget how they enthusiastically embraced the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that corporations have the right to free expression of opinion, just like people do, enshrined in the First Amendment.

Terry R. Arnold, Treasure Island

The job of business

‘Bud Lighting’ isn’t stopping any time soon | Column, June 1

Here we go again. We have seen the backlash from sports fans who were offended by what they considered to be anti-American action when athletes refused to stand for the national anthem. Now the biggest brand name in beer is reeling from a boycott caused by an advertising decision that has quite obviously offended many of its customers. Could we have a better example of Business 101 illustrating what happens when a company exercises its freedom of speech and expression in a market of diverse social opinion? While one side applauds the open-mindedness of Budweiser, a much bigger faction of formerly loyal customers wants no association with the product. Sadly, a marketing decision has caused many of its U.S. workers to lose hours, income and possibly their jobs. At the same level, it has potentially created angst on the production floor and in the break rooms between supporters and antagonists, while furthering the divide between labor and management.

The bottom line is that businesses supply goods and services, feed families and support stockholders and retirement programs. Companies all have competitors who will gladly take away their market share and associated profits when they fail to meet the needs or disappoint their customers. Socially responsible companies do not risk the jobs of their employees and the income of investors by associating themselves with volatile social and political issues, regardless of what side of the spectrum their management sympathizes with.

Steve Hemingway, Tampa

The real core mission

‘Bud Lighting’ isn’t stopping any time soon | Column, June 1

The last clause of Jonah Goldberg’s column on influencer boycotting highlighted what seems to me to be a major problem with our economy, which should no longer be called capitalism, but what I have dubbed “financialism.” He states that the core mission of a corporation is “shareholder value.” I believe that instead the core mission of a corporation is the production of the goods and/or services that it was formed to produce. Shifting that core to shareholder value has often led to a degradation in quality of the product to sometimes life-endangering levels, and the inhumane exploitation of workers. It is past time for economists to rethink their own values.

Kathleen Korb, Pinellas Park

Vouching for opportunism

Vouchers spur price hike | May 31

I guess I’m missing something regarding St. Paul Catholic School and the new “$8,000-plus vouchers for everybody” program. The statements made by those quoted in the article seem to be divorced from the reality that this is taxpayer money. Monsignor Robert Gibbons states that St. Paul Catholic School would be “negligent” if it didn’t “take maximum advantage of this dramatically expanded funding source.” I think this would be more appropriately characterized as “opportunistic.” He also thinks that they’d be “leaving money on the table and it will revert back to the state” if they “don’t take full advantage of this funding source”. I guess these 8k vouchers are apparently stacked on tables waiting for some institution to grab them, even by increasing tuition. Holly Bullard from the Florida Policy Institute thinks this taxpayer-funded money grab is part of the “free market.” I suspect that if this policy originated with Joe Biden it would instead be called “socialism.” Monsignor Gibbons also feels that families should pay a portion of the cost “so we don’t just become another public school where the government is funding the education.” He wants “parents who are fully vested” and thinks “it’s going to change our culture too dramatically” if “you’re not giving anything.” Well, everyone in Florida is now “vested” in private and parochial schools, not just the parents of St. Paul’s students — but taxpayers will only pay 80% of St. Paul’s tuition hikes so I guess that’s OK with him.

Don Bateman, Tampa

Pro ‘my belief’

Our politics aren’t as bitter as they appear. Even on abortion rights | Column, May 31

I would ask columnist Gary Abernathy that while he is free to be a “pro-life advocate” how are women who are not free to be “pro-their-own-lives” to respond? He is free to practice his beliefs, but when anti-abortion, forced birth laws are passed, women are not. He will never be forced into a health care situation that is dictated by others’ beliefs. Others pass these laws based on their own beliefs, but will never, ever face the same situation. Women are left with the results of beliefs these people insist on forcing on us, regardless of what our own personal beliefs, situations, health conditions, financial or family needs might be. This is the problem with pro-life. It really isn’t. It’s just “pro my belief.” How could you profess to being a “pro-life advocate” while voting for laws that put a woman’s life at risk? Or force a life-altering situation on girls at a very young age? That’s not pro-life, that’s pro-my-beliefs at all costs, while being anti-freedom and anti-women. I’d also like to note that perhaps the lack of conflict he experienced and the calm discussion was because both parties involved are men.

Spend your days with Hayes

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

Vivienne Handy, Wimauma