How would a sign change that?
For one thing, the employees can immediately call the police because an offense has already occurred as soon as someone walks in with an openly carried gun. If the proper sign is posted, the person openly-carrying is breaking the law and can be charged up front instead of having to ask them to leave first.
Also, as pointed out, people with permits tend to be very law-abiding. That's one of the requirements for getting a permit. So a posted sign likely means that it won't be an issue.
My guess is that no signs will be posted. The statement went out and now the antis are satisfied. The signs won't be posted and so the pros won't be too upset. It's like the businesses in TX who post the typical "No Guns" sign, knowing that it has no weight of law. They often do it knowing that the antis feel good when they see it and the permit holders can legally ignore it.
But the suggestion in the public announcement is that visible firearms have no place in a "family friendly atmosphere" or among "Little League teams, church groups and high school kids after football games." In the overall context this appears as an axiomatic assumption that is generally understood and accepted. As if anyone choosing to open carry in any manner should not be allowed near children—even the parents of these children or other adults involved in these groups.
Bah. Corporate statements are always full of BS. It's vanishingly rare for a corporation to come out with a statement that contains only the facts. The statement was obviously written to try to comfort any WB customers who are concerned about guns by spouting the typical platitudes, to read reasonably well to those who are 2A advocates but are ambivalent about OC, and all the while maybe not alienating the OC advocates too much. Like someone who's trying to keep everyone happy but focusing on the main customer base first and foremost. Like someone who's mostly concerned with making money.
This leads me to infer the underlying opposition to openly carried firearms that I ascribed to the CEO.
If it's important to you to believe that the company and/or CEO is anti-gun or anti-OC then just do it--you're certainly free to believe/infer whatever you want--as is everyone else, for that matter. I'm just saying that the facts we have available to us don't prove that belief/inference. You know, because they don't...
