The VP of Marketing who concocted this idea and the CMO were put on leave-- the company tried to make it sound like they voluntarily took a leave of absence, but reports from WSJ make it sound like they are being quietly fired.
Probably because "The boycott appears to be having some effect on business. According to Beer Business Daily, Bud Light sales fell 10.7% the week ended April 8, while shares in rival Molson Coors appear to have gotten at least a short-term lift."
I can see it from both sides here from a business perspective:
It's a declining brand and so you are attempting to broaden your demographics and buying personas and think you increase your total addressable market by appealing to young people, progressives, etc. who have never or rarely been your paying customers.
On the other hand, you are a lifestyle brand with an entrenched and passionate core identity of lower-middle-class/poor people and your billion dollar marketing machine should have enough data and analytics to show you that this would be a horrible, horrible idea.
At the end of the day to grow and transform, you have to take business risks. People rise and fall everyday in corporations taking risks, this is just a really visible one. In fact, if it weren't so visible and political, I'd argue these folks would probably get a raise and promotion for taking the risk and failing rather then being pushed out, but alas.