The people trying to buy a product they can't buy might, as might those investing in a product they won't actually be able to sell.
The aim is to regulate the sale of alcohol, which is widely agreed to be a good thing (at least in America). There's ample room to criticize the exact execution of that regulation, obviously, but requiring a licensed middleman to make the final sale is generally a better way to handle licensing than giving licenses directly to breweries. If a middleman fails to follow the rules and has their license taken away, you end up with an empty retail store or restaurant, which isn't going to be too hard for somebody else to fill. If a brewery fails to follow the rules and has their license taken away, you end up with an empty factory that was specifically configured to make a relatively small number of products whose recipes are still owned by the now-unlicensed brewer, which is likely to sit empty on a very large plot of land for quite some time because it's only going to be useful to a small niche of potential businesses.
Now, is that the best way to handle it? Probably not. That problem is really only applicable to macrobreweries, whereas microbreweries can generally fit into any larger retail property and also suffer for for having to find a middleman (that law basically prohibits brewpubs from being a thing). There's probably room to improve that law, but I understand why it's there, and in this case it's perfectly applicable: Dude doesn't have a license to sell the beer and the macrobrewery making it can't sell it directly.
All they should have done was make it so you had to take a picture of your ID instead.