LulaRoe, a fashion retailer recognized for its ultra-soft leggings, finds itself embroiled in controversy yet again. This time, the issue isn’t about their treatment of vendors or lawsuits from disgruntled consultants. Instead, it revolves around remarks made by prominent vendor Max “Bobby” Johnson, who recently posted a video ridiculing individuals with disabilities, specifically targeting those with Down Syndrome.
In the offensive video, Johnson introduces himself with the phrase, “Hi, my name is Max, and I’m special,” while making derogatory gestures. The backlash was swift, leading Johnson to release a poorly thought-out apology featuring his wife, Lisa, and her sibling, who has Down Syndrome. In this public apology, Johnson shed tears and attempted to justify his actions by stating that he has someone with Down Syndrome in his life, suggesting that this somehow absolves him of his mockery.
This excuse raises serious concerns: does having a family member with a disability give one a free pass to belittle others? The answer is a resounding no. The outcry against Johnson’s behavior was immediate and intense, particularly given that the founders of LulaRoe, Mark and Diane Stidham, have a granddaughter, Sophie, who was born with Down Syndrome. To honor her, they even created a dress named after her and pledged to donate a dollar from each sale to the National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS).
However, the NDSS quickly condemned Johnson’s video in a strong statement, announcing the termination of their partnership with LulaRoe. They emphasized their commitment to promoting the dignity and inclusion of individuals with Down Syndrome, prioritizing their values over financial ties.
One would expect that Mark and Diane Stidham would sever ties with Johnson following such egregious behavior. Surprisingly, they chose to side with him, claiming that they found his apology genuine and that they had received assurances that such behavior would not occur again. This decision raises troubling questions about their values. Would they rather maintain a relationship with an individual who publicly mocks those with disabilities than uphold their partnership with the NDSS?
In any other professional setting, such behavior would typically result in immediate termination. Yet, it seems that Johnson’s status as a top salesperson outweighs the ethical implications of his actions. The public response has been so severe that a petition on Change.org has been launched, demanding the termination of Johnson’s contract with LulaRoe.
For anyone still supporting LulaRoe—whether through sales, promotions, or purchases—it’s important to recognize the implications of endorsing a brand that prioritizes profits over ethical behavior. The actions of Johnson and the Stidhams reveal a troubling disregard for decency in favor of financial gain.
If you are interested in further exploring topics related to pregnancy and home insemination, I recommend checking out this excellent resource. You might also find valuable information in this post about the artificial insemination kit for home use. Additionally, for privacy concerns, please refer to our privacy policy.
In summary, LulaRoe’s decision to back a vendor who publicly mocked individuals with disabilities has ignited significant controversy, demonstrating a troubling prioritization of profit over principles.