Following the incident, First Watch’s corporate office issued a statement explaining its decision to remove Andy Ternay from the premises. The company emphasized that the action was based solely on concerns about the explicit language printed on his shirt and the restaurant’s commitment to maintaining a family-oriented atmosphere. Representatives stated that when families complained, the staff believed they had a responsibility to act, adding that the move had “nothing to do with any political statement or the color of anyone’s skin.”
Ternay acknowledged that reactions inside the restaurant had varied widely. While some diners objected strongly to the wording on his shirt, he said others expressed support. A woman at the register offered encouragement, and two African American servers reportedly told him they appreciated the message. Ternay explained that his intention in wearing the shirt was to communicate solidarity, saying he did not want “people of color, Muslims, LGBTQ people, or immigrants to feel alone.” He added that he viewed using his position and identity to challenge discrimination as a form of speaking “truth to power.”
His social media post describing the experience quickly gained traction, drawing tens of thousands of shares and prompting a broad online discussion. Many readers debated the line between protected political expression and the responsibility of businesses to provide a comfortable environment for families with young children. Others reflected on differing community experiences, particularly in response to the mixed reactions Ternay said he received from African American readers who felt discouraged by social divisions.
Ternay maintained that he did not plan to call for a boycott or publicly condemn the restaurant despite the dispute. His focus, he said, was on the larger conversation the incident prompted rather than on the establishment itself. The story continued to circulate widely, underscoring the long-standing tensions between personal expression and public settings — especially when messages are delivered in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The event, though rooted in a single afternoon in 2018, remains an example of how quickly interactions in everyday spaces can become part of national dialogue. It also highlights how individuals interpret acts of expression differently depending on personal experience, community identity, and the broader social climate.
