How about we tweak your analogy a bit; Suppose the family owns an underground restaurant in their home. The person in charge of booking tables accidentally makes a reservation for a rumored killer. It hasn't been proven this guy has killed, and he might not even have any mal intent.
Perhaps he heard the steak and wine are awesomesauce and wants to get in on that action. So, the (maybe murderer) guy, arrives, and orders himself a ribeye medium-well, and a nice chianti. He gestures at the wall of wine to the San Giusto a Rentennano and asks for two of those.
Thirty minutes later and already mildly intoxicated, the man's meal is served by the head of the family/waiter who promptly plunges a freshly sharpened knife in the customer's back after setting down the plate. Of course, he did this in "self-defense" because of the rumor. After all, he had to protect his family. Anywho, the moral of this story is: "Come to the Wilson home Diner, where we can have your steak, and eat it too."
I'm hopeful that a middle way will present itself, preferably one where nobody gets killed, and then we won't have to embrace spoopy slogans that startle stakeholders or chase off would-be investors.
RE: Considering @aggroed's "Teach The Controversy" post