Some thoughts partly in rebuttal to this, but also on this topic generally (mods I appreciate this discussion may be a little near the line so if there's anything you feel is stepping over it and want to take out that's fine):
1. Christianity, especially in the New Testament, as far as I understand it, can basically be boiled down to "Don't act :censored:ty towards other people". Way, way too many people in my view seem to ignore this and hide behind their religion and/or use it as an excuse to be :censored:ty to other people. Whilst I'm not necessarily saying that's what Coonrod is doing, phrases like "protect the nuclear family" very much get my hackles up and act as a red flag on this matter.
2. Using terms like "free advertising" and "popular corporate brand" in this case strikes me as completely missing the point, almost to the extent of being wilfully disingenuous. Yes BLM is an organisation, but it's a very different situation to a corporate brand and trying to draw a comparison between it and something like Nike, which it feels to me like you were trying to do, is extremely misguided.
3. I will give you the fact that BLM as an organisation are not perfect, and there are issues on which I do not agree with them - which is why in some ways it's a shame (albeit an understandable one) that the organisation has become so inseparably tied in with what is a far larger (and imo extremely important) movement relating to racial justice and equality as a whole. It's a topic that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but a lot of the people who really need to be learning something and properly taking things on board about the wider message are able to, to some extent, sidestep the problem by refusing to engage entirely because of issues, legitimate or otherwise, they have with specifically the BLM organisation.