Turns out that limiting your supply options like that has consequences.
Without even needing to watch that - Duh? Of course it has direct negative consequences. Hurting themselves more than the other side would also be completely unsurprising if they're not doing it in conjunction with a significant portion of the rest of potential clients. That doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. Much the same can be said of all kinds of trade restrictions around the world, yet there are many justifications for such restrictions that focus on various other angles.
A boycott, whatever the motivation, is perfectly fine.
Demonizing someone, and trying to deny them access to employment and public discourse, because they dissent from your preferred brand of sociopolitical woo, is something else entirely.
Fair enough, in principle. In practice? That kind of thing has been in play for a long time. The worst offenders have generally been the same groups that currently whine about wokeness, too, at that.
When it comes to acting to deny people access to employment and public discourse because they dissent from your preferred brand of sociopolitical woo, to poke at a relatively recent example that goes above and beyond in that direction - that radio show host who was fired mid program for having the temerity to offer mild criticism of Trump is a pretty stunning example of exactly what you just described. "Loyalty" has long been far more valued by self-described conservatives than self described liberals and progressives, while truth is more valued by said liberals and progressives than said conservatives.
The businesses that act to cater to each do tend to respond accordingly, incidentally. Hence how Fox and much of the rest of right-wing media got away with tossing truth into the trash can for long enough to convince most of their "conservative" audience of Trump's Big Lies.
And yet we have seen it practiced gy conservatives in the US for a hundred and thirty years at least. Companies have had no problem firing employees for union activity. They not only have employed private police, ie: The Pinkertons to beat them up. They have also used the US military.
Hardly the only similar situation, of course. Much of the history of racism in the US involves demonizing, denying access to employment and public discourse, and plenty more (and worse) along those lines.
The claims by many of the "anti-woke" crowd to want a color blind meritocracy are a bit worthy of eye rolls when kept in perspective with things like that. Actual "wokeness" is largely a reaction to how very far away from a color blind meritocracy we have been in practice.
Corporate "wokeness," on the other hand, is largely an attempted strategy to increase profits. Corporate "wokeness" seems like it can often work, for that matter, though it's hardly some guarantee that profits will increase, depending on the larger situation and their existing customer base. Businesses that largely depend and cater to the "anti-woke" crowd will generally suffer for public "woke" stunts and "wokeness" won't somehow make up for larger consumer behavior trends and changes in the quality of products.
