Warning: take this post with a grain of salt; this scenario is just a possibility.
I remember some hoopla that had LL Bean submitting to the American Family Association weirdos (who boast over 500,000 members) two years ago since they were put on their "naughty list" for not using the word "Christmas" enough in their marketing. They changed their website terminology shortly thereafter to appease them (after phone calls and E-mails and threats that their members wouldn't shop there) and were finally put back on the "nice list" so the angry consumers could feel OK about shopping with them again. This tactic of using your organization to fuel your agenda is not new. In fact, there could be a correlation...
Since Hydroflask is now associated with LL Bean, who's to say AFA doesn't have their bigot hands taking the pulse of who they do business with? A lot of these people have nothing better to do with their time than to stick their heads in other peoples' business. What's their incentive not to, especially if LL Bean has a documented history of bending to their will? Give an inch, they take a mile. It empowers them. That intolerant undertone fits the "corporate-speak" letter too, doesn't it? "We want to convey our brand more clearly".
Looking further, according to rightwingwatch:
A major target of AFA's had been Disney and its subsidiaries; "Disney's attack on America's families has become so blatant, so intentional, so obvious, that American Family Association has called for a boycott of all Disney products until such time as this activity ceases." AFA ended its boycott of Disney in 2005, citing the departure of Disney CEO Michael Eisner and its divestiture of Miramax films as rationale, but openly stating "AFA had moved on to other important issues, such as an increasingly activist judiciary and the push for same-sex marriage."
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if an AFA member immediately got on the phone (freaking out on a Judy Garland reference) after listening to a podcast where you all plugged Hydroflask. I can hear it now, "It's either them or us! Those people are sinners, blah, blah, hate speech, blah, blah, etc." These "little victories" they claim make them feel important.
Either way, I guess it's already decided that the business relationship is over. No reason to troll the bearer of bad news other than the slim chance they respond to a DISer who forwards that E-Mail when they discover something liable you could then use to sue. Hence, no responses.