Labor activists suggest that such groups are inherently anti-union, because without automatic union membership, workers can avoid paying union dues and still receive the benefits of the union's bargaining power.

And so the boycott over Coors' union policy continues. According to John Laughlin of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, the boycott will end, "When either Coors allows a free undeterred [union] election or when they settle a collective bargaining agreement with Brewery Workers Local 366."

But even if the AFL-CIO were to settle its disputes with the company, many boycotters would not be satisfied, for they object not just to brewery policy, but to the organizations which the Coors family funds with their brewery profits. Scondras typifies this position with his claim, "It would be self-destructive for gay people or black people or progressive people to be financially supporting a family that makes it very clear through their behavior that they're interested in dealing with gay people, black people and progressive people in a very disrespectful manner." Scondras' assertions are based on a belief that several of the organizations funded by Joseph Coors promote policies which are harmful to civil rights.

But Coors supporters say that boycotters should separate Coors the company from Coors the family and that the boycott should be based on the former. Coors spokesman Joe Fuentes suggests that the family tries "to separate the political involvement versus the company involvement."

Scondras rejects this assertion, replying, "it is like saying that a man earning $16,000 a year who stands at the corner on a soap box saying that all women should be in chains and a man who earns $100,000,000 a year and says all women should be in chains and here is $50,000,000 to ensure some day they get enchained [are equal]."

The degree to which the Coors are ultraconservative is a subject for debate. Joseph Coors' charitable contributions as well as those of the Adolph Coors Foundation have long supported right-wing organizations such as the Heritage Foundation. But for all the conservative think tanks and policy groups that the Coors family funds, they provide even more money to schools, hospitals and community service centers.

Both sides of the controversy feel that their positions are gaining strength. Coors shipped a record number of beer barrels last year and continues to expand and do well in its new markets. Meanwhile, the boycott groups claim they are increasing outreach and educational efforts.

Coors continues to expand into new states and the boycott continues to follow. And boycotters maintain that as long as Coors exists, they will too. Hilary Richard, manager of Harvard Law School's pub, which does not sell Coors, says, "to the extent that [the family has] politicized themselves, I don't think that they can separate their politics from their business."

After 20 years, both sides have become accustomed to the accusations and counter-accusations. The only happy ending for most of the boycotters' would be for the brewery to go out of business. But Coors' demise is far from imminent, so the brewery and the boycotters battle on, digging new trenches in a case of consumer warfare that is certain to continue for some time.