WOW...radical thought...stick to RETAILING, page-127

If I was a shareholder I would care. This is mildly interesting to observe even as a non holder.

I don't see a problem with a private business choosing what it can sell (or not sell) in the same way customers are free to shop where they choose.

But there is a fiduciary duty for a company to do the right thing by it's shareholders. Which may be not selling unprofitable merchandise, fair enough.
But antagonizing a segment of the customer base for no reason is not doing the right thing by shareholders as I cannot think of a single circumstance where for this business, it will result in an overall gain in profit. People shop at supermarkets based on need, price and convenience. I highly doubt even a hypothetical Australia day hater who somehow loves woolies did this is going to run out and buy more food they won't eat.

They cannot even make the argument it's a sneaky guerilla marketing campaign, it just does not make logical sense. Did they pay for the multi-page ads they've taken out across legacy media to proudly proclaim this?

So then the next assumption one would logically make is that this is some sort of ideological thing. I don't actually know if that's true or not, I don't presume to read people's minds...but if people are even wondering that have you done a good job representing your company?

Trying to remain as impartial as possible here and I just cannot think of a way to spin this and make it look good!