Posted on 04/19/2016 6:17:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dear Wells Fargo Customer Service:
Recently, a friend sent me a picture of your 54-story Charlotte headquarters lit up with the colors of the transgendered pride flag. I attempted to contact you privately to register my strong objection to your company’s decision to take the wrong side in the nation’s raging cultural war. Unfortunately, your website was not sufficiently inclusive. It only allowed me 1,000 characters of space to leave a comment. It’s going to take a lot more than that so I decided to make this issue the subject of my weekly opinion column.
This isn’t my first negative experience with Wells Fargo’s aggressive activism. Several months ago, I walked into one of your branch offices to make a quick deposit. I made the mistake of wearing a black and purple tie, which one of your tellers mistakenly interpreted as a show of support for so-called anti-bullying legislation. Had I known that wearing purple was somehow supportive of “anti-bullying” measures I would have tossed that tie in the wastebasket long ago.
Nonetheless, the bank teller decided to invite me to wear the tie again the following week in support of anti-bullying measures designed to protect the LGBT community. Given that I am a teacher I decided to seize on this as a teachable moment.
First, I explained to your teller that I am a college professor who teaches a class on the subject of crime and the First Amendment. The course deals with constitutional limitations on the advocacy of illegal conduct, the definition and regulation of obscenity, and specific topics like “hate crime” penalty enhancement statutes.
After letting the teller know about my experience teaching on free speech issues, I informed him that I oppose so-called anti-bullying legislation. I briefly explain that such measures are often thinly veiled efforts to curb speech that is clearly protected by the First Amendment.
The response of the bank teller shocked me. Rather than becoming angry like most gay activists he responded by saying, “Well, that’s also unacceptable.” In other words, the teller gave the right answer!
For the record, I commend your employee for calmly responding to criticism of measures he obviously supports. That shows me he has some understanding and appreciation of the free exchange of ideas. Nonetheless, our exchange raises a serious question about professional protocol.
The First Amendment clearly protects the teller’s right to lobby for legislation against bullying. Whether the specific measures that flow from his advocacy pass constitutional muster is another matter. Whether it is appropriate to pursue this advocacy in the workplace with customers who are there to do business unrelated to politics is another matter still.
It in no way conflicts with my First Amendment advocacy to tell you that it’s just not appropriate to try to recruit people into support of your pet political causes while doing business in a crowded line at a bank. If the generalization seems harsh or unwarranted then please consider the following hypothetical questions:
*If your teller sees someone wearing a Christian cross around her neck would it be appropriate for him to seize the moment and invite her to a Christian Coalition banquet while she is trying to make a simple deposit?
*If your teller sees a customer wearing a maternity blouse would it be appropriate for him to seize the moment and invite her to a pro-life rally while she is trying to cash a check?
*If your teller sees a customer wearing a yarmulke would it be appropriate for him to seize the moment and invite him a pro-Israel rally while he is trying to make a transfer of funds?
I suspect that you would not accept one of your tellers doing any of these things in the workplace. In fact, you would deem them to be unnecessary invitations to controversy. You would also wonder how the person made such leaping inferences about the customer’s politics based on their manner of dress.
Of course, in your world you view gay activism differently than you view the causes represented in those hypothetical questions. You see gay activism as being entirely uncontroversial. It’s just the kind of thing any fair-minded person would accept. But the banking world is no longer the same as the rest of the world.
A few years ago, Bank of America fired my friend Frank Turek from his position as a management consultant simply because he had written a book expressing opposition to same-sex marriage. The consequence of this kind of intolerance in the banking industry has become obvious: Your industry is now becoming an ideological echo chamber, rather than a place of true diversity.
Ideological echo chambers are dangerous places. When people simply sit around reinforcing each other’s beliefs rather than challenging them bad decisions inevitably follow. One day you’re advocating for a government imposed end to bullying. The next day you’re firing people who refuse to accept your definition of marriage. In the end, you’re lighting up the sky in celebration of those who pay surgeons vast sums to mutilate their genitals.
So I would like to conclude this letter with just two simple requests. First, when I come through the line at one of your banks could you just process my request without trying to show me how I can help you rally in support for the homosexual agenda? Second, could you please demonstrate real courage by flying that transgendered flag from another Wells Fargo building?
You can start with your corporate office in Qatar.
Thanks and have a blessed day,
Mike S. Adams
dayamn
Wells Fargo has sucked for a long time. I bailed on them long ago.
Finally got my sister to drop them after her checking account was hacked. Twice.
I have to think that even as fagophilic an organization as Wells Fargo (whose headquarters in the US is in San Francisco ... need I say more?) would discourage its employees from cultural advocacy when interacting with customers. Probably the only thing Wells cherishes more than butt-humpers is money, and offending customers might cost them a nickel or two.
The PC disease has infected many “Enlightened” CEOs,Ivy-League Professors, and the NPR crowd. Unless this Country returns to its Founder's ideals, I fear we are lost.
I’ve got to get out of HELLS FARGO AND “GAYPAL” I have substantial sums in both and its’s time to get off the pot. They have been pushing the sodomite and pervert agenda for so long. They absolutely hate the traditional God-given pattern for a man-woman marriage.We seem to be losing on every front to the 1% sodom coalition with only Phil Robertson, Chik Fil-et, Franklin Graham, and others to fight our losing battle for us.
Sexual orientation should be is just as personal as bathroom habits.
As long its solo or with two consenting adults, keep that "stuff" private.
As soon as he mentioned the incident with the tie, I knew the story that followed sounded more like an account of a circus than of a bank.
Hoo boy.
If Wells is on the naughty list, who’s on the nice? Wells is kinder to people with bruised credit than a lot of other banks are. That’s why I picked it, years ago. And I can fairly say, they’ve never mailed me a “gay” ad or popped one in my face. But I don’t watch commercial TV either.
Maybe Adams could have finessed this by saying yes he’s anti-bullying. He doesn’t want the bank lending its stature to the bullying of bakeries, churches, etc. If the bank wants to see fewer of these “objectionable religious protection laws” then maybe it can withdraw from lending support to the causes that provoke their need.
Typo on previous post—
Great read!!
Sexual orientation is just as personal as one’s bathroom habits.
As long its solo or with two consenting adults, please keep that “stuff” private.
How about Jesus Christ...
The best way to pop Satan in the snout is evangelism.
I’ve been thinking of changing banks and this may be a good reason, but what bank is *NOT* in support of all this LGBTRDwhatever crap anymore?
Can anyone tell me with any degree of certainty? In ethics, it’s morally permissible to “cooperate with evil” as long as your cooperation is sufficiently remote. Given that it doesn’t seem I have anywhere to put my money other than under my mattress, to avoid this type of crap, I’d say I’m sufficiently removed from the evil.
But I’d like to know if I’m wrong. So anyone please tell me if any financial institution isn’t engaging in this stuff. Even just not taking a stand for it (not necessarily against it). I’m sure they all are, not because they really do “support” the effort, but because they see it as a good advertising/PR tool.
I think everyone can speak up and remind them that they are pushing things and that if a rival stood up for “traditional values” and was otherwise reasonable, they would lose to that rival.
I think we are discovering what a society that no longer pretends it is an arm of a church, acts like. Or maybe that should be, that pretends it is an arm of a wicked church. The religious mindset of America can, indeed, rot. With the result that it supports wickeder things than if it had remained merely worldly.
No surprise here as Wells Fargo ran a TV ad featuring two “Mommies” adopting a little girl.
They just dropped their credit score for loans to 601, that is how we melted down last time. They are feeling sorry for the homosexuals, they must be getting some sweet rates when they say they are an oppressed homosexual.
Any bank that starts getting too politically correct, spells doom. Time to pull your money, Bank of America and Chase too. They are the snakes of banks,(hey I like it a snake bank) I did loans with all of them, poor customer service, shysters.
Finally got my sister to drop them after her checking account was hacked.
*****************************
That’s why I do not pay bills or buy things, on line or via debit card, that give access to my accounts.
I still write paper checks for some bills, like utilities, but everything else is a cash transaction for me.
I’ve been a Wells Fargo customer for many years and never have had a problem with them. Managers/Tellers are representative of all racial and ethnic groups, and they are all very friendly and helpful.
This is about early GWB-era liars’ loans, apparently. And the FHA was left holding the bag on their insurance (I don’t know why they just didn’t refuse to pay than to pay and then sue, it would have been more straightforward).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.