Multiple news sources have already reported that the marquee postings came
down in direct response to angry posts via Twitter that the Wendy's corporate
office started receiving from radical homosexual activists.
Dennis Lynch with the Wendy's corporate office responded to a number of the
Tweets, saying: "An independent franchisee posted the sign, which he's taken
down. We proudly serve ALL customers!" [Emphasis Lynch]
Shortly thereafter, Lynch issued a statement to the media which read: "This is
one independent franchisee's personal opinion. We are proud to serve customers
of varied races, backgrounds, cultures and sexual orientation, with different
beliefs and values. Bearing that in mind, this franchisee has decided to remove
the messages from his restaurant signs."
Wendy's patrons, in the meantime, are left feeling confused and, in some cases,
angry over Wendy's politically correct response.
Some are asking why Lynch chose to emphasize the word "ALL" in his response,
particularly in light of the fact that Chick-fil-A also serves "ALL" customers
and makes no decisions in its hiring or employee retention practices based on
so-called "sexual orientation."
One
post to Twitter reads: "All that goodwill that @Wendys franchisee
garnered earlier today? Obliterated by Corp. Wendy's." Another reads:
"Whoever runs @Wendys’ @twitter account probably needs to be fired. They’re
doing far more damage to the brand than the sign ever could have." And many
more posts echo the above sentiments.
Others are mystified by the implied hypocrisy in the statement Lynch released to
the media. If Wendy's is, in fact, "proud to serve customers... with different
beliefs and values," and the signs are the "personal opinion" of an independent
franchise; then why force Furman to take the marquees posted at his restaurant
locations down?
Is not the concept of honoring all values and beliefs best served by allowing an
open marketplace of ideas, or are some "beliefs and values" favored over others?
The blog Prayer
and Action gave its answer to that question: "Wendy’s has sent a message
much louder than their intended message of 'inclusiveness and tolerance.' Their
intolerance to be counted among the Chick-fil-A supporters could very well
affect Wendy’s economic bottom line."
Ironically (or perhaps not so ironically), Wendy's is no stranger to run-ins
with the "tyrannical tolerance police".
Over a decade ago, the homosexual lobby placed Wendy's former owner, Dave
Thomas, in the cross-hairs, and called for a nationwide boycott of Wendy's,
after noticing that Wendy's ads stopped running on the sitcom Ellen, around the
time that Ellen DeGeneres "came-out of the closet."
Whether Wendy's actually "pulled" the ads or the timing of the cessation was
simply a coincidence, and Wendy's simply didn't make additional ad purchases
after exhausting its last buy of ads for an unrelated reason (i.e., the show's
ratings were abysmal), will never really be known, and its not really relevant.
The fact that Thomas had been known to be a donor to conservative causes made
him a prime target; the timing of the cessation of the ads was just saucy for
the goose.
A message had to be sent. Do our bidding or else. And Thomas and Wendy's were
tailor-made targets that could be used as "examples" to effectively send that
message to every private corporation that had ears to hear.
Thomas eventually sold Wendy's (for reasons not related to the boycott incident)
and passed-away some years back. He was, by many accounts, a decent man who will
be sorely missed by family, friends, associates, and all those who enjoy "Hot
and Juicy" burgers.
One would think that Wendy's past run-in's with the "tyrannical tolerance
police" would lead the corporation to be sympathetic to Chick-fil-A's plight;
but it would appear that the corporation's recent politically correct kow-tow to
the homosexual lobby is a clear indication that the message that was sent to
Wendy's over a decade ago was received loud-and-clear.
We can only hope that Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A will stand firm in the days to
come.
|