Women Buys All The Indecent T-Shirts In Orem Store Mall.

[JLHPROF]

there will still be all sorts of Latter-day Saints who will making fun of those members who are really worried that all the wickedness has gone too far. You know, like those who mercilessly mocked and ridiculed Noah for building an ark on dry ground right up until the moment the flood waters started to rise.

 

 

I have a friend who every time we walk by Church Headquarters here in SLC likes to mumble something about the "Great and Spacious Building"... your comment just reminded me of:

"And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the ^aattitude of ^bmocking and pointing their fingers"

[bluebell]

I've never claimed she broke any law. Inadvertently she reenforced for the Law of Supply and Demand. All she really did was stimulate supply. by increasing demand.

 

I know.  This post wasn't in response to anything you had posted.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://nypost.com/2014/02/19/utah-mom-buys-out-pacsun-stores-indecent-t-shirts/

 

SALT LAKE CITY — A mother upset about “indecent” T-shirts on display at a Utah mall found a quick if not especially convenient way to remove them: She bought every last one.

Judy Cox and her 18-year-old son were shopping Saturday at the University Mall in Orem, about 40 miles south of Salt Lake City, when she saw the shirts in the window of a PacSun store.

The shirts featured pictures of scantily dressed models in provocative poses.

Cox said she complained about the window display to a store manager and was told the T-shirts couldn’t be taken down without approval from the corporate office. She then bought all 19 T-shirts in stock, for a total of $567.

She says she plans to return them later, toward the end of the chain store’s 60-day return period.

The shirts cost about $28 each on the website for PacSun, which sells beach clothes for teenagers and young adults.

“These shirts clearly cross a boundary that is continually being pushed on our children in images on the Internet, television and when our families shop in the mall,” Cox said in an email to The Associated Press.

The story was first reported by The Daily Herald of Provo.

An employee at the Orem store said Tuesday she wasn’t authorized to speak about the issue and referred questions to the company’s Orange County, Calif., corporate headquarters. PacSun CEO Gary Schoenfeld said in an emailed statement the company takes pride in the clothes and products it sells, which are inspired by music, art, fashion and action sports.

“While customer feedback is important to us, we remain committed to the selection of brands and apparel available in our stores,” Schoenfeld said in the statement.

Orem is a city of about 90,000 in ultraconservative Utah County that uses the motto “Family City USA.” Most residents belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which frowns on pornography and encourages its youth to dress and act modestly.

Cox met with Orem city attorney Greg Stephens on Tuesday to discuss whether the images on the T-shirts violated city code.

Stephens said he told Cox that she first needed to file a complaint with police. He said police would then review the issue and decide whether it needed to be passed on to the city attorney, a process that could take weeks.

City code prohibits anyone from putting “explicit sexual material” on public display. The city defines that as “any material that appeals to a prurient interest in sex and depicts nudity, actual or simulated sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse.”

Cox said she wants her actions to make clear that these types of images are not acceptable for public display.

“I hope my efforts will inspire others to speak up within their communities,” Cox said in an email. “You don’t have to purchase $600 worth of T-shirts, but you can express your concerns to businesses and corporations who promote the display of pornography to children.”

Longtime mall manager Rob Kallas said the display is down now because Cox bought all the shirts. He said the PacSun store manager told him she was embarrassed to put up the display but was following instructions from corporate managers.

Kallas said this is the first time he’s received complaints about PacSun. But in the past, others have complained about images in the windows of Victoria’s Secret. That’s led to Orem city attorneys at least once asking the store to remove an image, he said.

Kallas didn’t see the T-shirts in question until getting an email from Cox, but he said he agrees that they were inappropriate. Victoria’s Secret has images of women in lingerie, but their clientele is different, he said.

“This is a store that caters to junior high and high school age kids,” said Kallas, mall manager for 40 years. “Some of the poses were provocative and were inappropriate for a store catering to young people.”

PacSun has 600 stores across the United States, the company’s website shows.

 

I think that this is good advertisement for the lds church.

Without commenting on the incident in the report, as a journalist, I would give this news story a grade of C minus.

 

The reason I grade it down is the use of the term "ultraconservative" in characterizing Utah county.  Calling Utah County "ultraconservative" (a subjective determination and a potentially inflammatory or prejudicial label) without attribution amounts to editorializing in straight news reporting, a practice that is frowned upon in the profession.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

I know.  This post wasn't in response to anything you had posted.

 

No problem.

[bluebell]

There may (or may) not be an act of fraud in purchasing merchandise with the intent of returning it later for the purpose of preventing them being sold to others.  Otherwise, why wouldn't the Sears instruct its employees to buy out all of the Macy's stock each year at Christmas and then return the items for a full refund after the holidays?  That would seem to be a pretty effective form of corporate sabotage.

 

However, I don't know if there is a law that applies to this situation but, as Mormons, I didn't think that our obligation was just to not break the laws.  I thought we had an obligation to sustain them.  And part of that obligation is to follow the procedures established by the law itself.  Instead, she decided to take the law into her own hands.  Fortunately, in this case, she only had to be dishonest (let's not pretend that she told the store about her plan to return this items later).  But what if it hadn't been so easy?

 

What if the offending images had been on a sign instead?  Should she had painted graffiti over it or simply burned it to the ground?  Of course not.  She should CALL THE POLICE AND FILE A REPORT.

 

Just because one is right doesn't give them the right to take the law into their own hands.

 

If you don't know if she broke any laws, then you also don't know whether or not she's sustaining the law.  

 

Also, your examples of whether or not it would be o.k. to actually break the law, when talking about a situation where you don't even know if a law was broken, are reaching.

 

If you find out whether or not she actually did something illegal, let me know.  It would be interesting to understand the situation better.  

[bluebell]

 

You mean, file a complaint with police first, as the city Attorney indicated? It is clear this person was seeking to impose her values on others. She is effectively a vigalante.

 

Then it should not be too long before we read of her being charged with a crime, as I'm pretty sure vigilantism is illegal.  Guess we'll have to see if that actually occurs.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've never claimed she broke any law. Inadvertently she reenforced for the Law of Supply and Demand. All she really did was stimulate supply. by increasing demand.

But if she returns the shirts near the end of the return period, as she plans to do, according to the story, wouldn't that theoretically neutralize whatever stimulation of the supply was caused by her purchase of the shirts?

 

I suppose the store could refuse to honor its return policy in this instance, but no one is saying it will.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

You mean, file a complaint with police first, as the city Attorney indicated? It is clear this person was seeking to impose her values on others. She is effectively a vigalante.

Calling her a "vigilante" is ridiculous. She has violated no laws. Neither has she taken the law into her own hands which, by definition, is what a vigilante does.

 

You may not like or approve of her behavior. But she has acted within the law just as surely as did the store when it put merchandise on display which, arguably, is inconsistent with prevailing community standards.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

If you don't know if she broke any laws, then you also don't know whether or not she's sustaining the law.

Also, your examples of whether or not it would be o.k. to actually break the law, when talking about a situation where you don't even know if a law was broken, are reaching.

If you find out whether or not she actually did something illegal, let me know. It would be interesting to understand the situation better.

So the morality of one's actions now depends upon their legality? Well, then I guess I'm off to Colorado for a little marijuana and gay sex! After all, I wouldn't be breaking any laws.

[thesometimesaint]

But if she returns the shirts near the end of the return period, as she plans to do, according to the story, wouldn't that theoretically neutralize whatever stimulation of the supply was caused by her purchase of the shirts?

 

I suppose the store could refuse to honor its return policy in this instance, but no one is saying it will.

 

Apparently the story got into the newspaper. Dollars to donuts that increased demand at least among the teenage set.

[bluebell]

So the morality of one's actions now depends upon their legality? Well, then I guess I'm off to Colorado for a little marijuana and gay sex! After all, I wouldn't be breaking any laws.

 

You keep moving the goal posts.  Can you just decide what you want to argue and then stick with that?

 

You used the 11 article of faith as your argument for why what she did was wrong.  If you want to focus on the morality of the issue, then don't use something that talks about needing to sustain the law to support your argument.

 

Moving on to your new complaint, if she didn't break the law, then what exactly was immoral about what she did?

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently the story got into the newspaper. Dollars to donuts that increased demand at least among the teenage set.

Now you're venturing off into the realm of speculation.

 

All I'm saying is that her act of buying the shirts does not necessarily stimulate demand in the long run, since she plans to return the shirts for a refund. Whether or not resulting publicity will increase demand is beyond the scope of your initial claim, which was that her mere act of purchasing the shirts will stimulate demand.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So the morality of one's actions now depends upon their legality?

 

bluebell never said that. This is an absurd distortion of her words.

[mormonnewb]

You keep moving the goal posts.  Can you just decide what you want to argue and then stick with that?

 

You used the 11 article of faith as your argument for why what she did was wrong.  If you want to focus on the morality of the issue, then don't use something that talks about needing to sustain the law to support your argument.

 

Moving on to your new complaint, if she didn't break the law, then what exactly was immoral about what she did?

 

It was dishonest.  As Mormons, we still have a problem with that, don't we?

 

By analogy, let's suppose that she was walking with her 19 yo daughter in that same strip mall and the daughter becomes enamored with this really "hot" guy (let's call him Bad Boy).  With one look, the mother can tell that this guy is totally appropriate for her daughter.  However, rather than talking to her daughter about what is wrong and trying to teach her something, she decides to instead approach the young man and ask him out on a date (for this purposes, let's assume that mom is single).  Her goal is to take the young man off the market just long enough for the daughter to find an RM.  The daughter does and, in Orem fashion, she is married, say, 60 days later.  The mother than calls Bad Boy to tell him that they are through.

 

In this case, the mother has committed no crimes.  She is totally within her rights to breakup with (return) this young man at any time.  But she is dead WRONG.  She has falsely created expectations in the Bad Boy.  And yes, she did it to protect her daughter from such an "indecent" young man, but it's not okay to use deception just because you have good intentions.

[Scott Lloyd]

It was dishonest. 

 

Bunkum!

 

The store offered the shirts for purchase. She honestly bought and paid for the shirts.

 

Apparently, the store doesn't care who buys the product, so long as it gets paid. And, presumably, the store can refuse to honor the return policy.

 

Consumers with an appetite for shirts with trashy designs are free to look elsewhere.

 

You really are doing amazing acrobatics in stretching to place blame on this woman, mormonweb. There perhaps ought to be an Olympic event for such prowess.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Now you're venturing way into the realm of speculation.

 

All I'm saying is that her act of buying the shirts does not necessarily stimulate demand in the long run, since she plans to return the shirts for a refund. Whether or not resulting publicity will increase demand is beyond the scope of your initial claim, which was that her mere act of purchasing the shirts will stimulate demand.

 

Her actions were to prevent others from buying those shirts. Only in the very short term did that idea work. The next customer walking in wanting one of those shirts effectively told the company to make more.

[Scott Lloyd]

Her actions were to prevent others from buying those shirts. Only in the very short term did that idea work. The next customer walking in wanting one of those shirts effectively told the company to make more.

But you're ignoring my point. Her eventual return of the shirts for a refund theoretically will create an overabundance for the product that is commensurate with whatever stimulation there may have been on supply caused by her purchase of the shirts, in effect canceling out that stimulation. The supplier will be less apt to produce more shirts -- or to produce as many as it otherwise would have -- when it sees that the store in Orem is overstocked on inventory after the woman returns the shirts that she bought.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[AddamS]

But Orem does have a city code and these t-shirts seem to be breaking the code.

 

On who's authority it it determined these shirts are breaking the city's code? Just because she filed a complaint, doesn't mean anything but that in her opinion the code may prohibit the store's display of the items.

 

You can google the shirts to see them easily. While I think they are provocative, it would be hard to make a legal argument they are breaking any city code when a comparable percentage of exposed flesh can be seen in any two-piece bathing suit ad.

[thesometimesaint]

But you're ignoring my point. Her eventual return of the shirts for a refund theoretically will create an overabundance for the product that is commensurate with whatever stimulation there may have been on supply caused by her purchase of the shirts, in effect canceling out that stimulation.

 

Unfortunately it is never commensurate. She has effectively advertised for that company.

[bluebell]

It was dishonest.

 

What was dishonest about it?

 

By analogy, let's suppose that she was walking with her 19 yo daughter in that same strip mall and the daughter becomes enamored with this really "hot" guy (let's call him Bad Boy).  With one look, the mother can tell that this guy is totally appropriate for her daughter.  However, rather than talking to her daughter about what is wrong and trying to teach her something, she decides to instead approach the young man and ask him out on a date (for this purposes, let's assume that mom is single).  Her goal is to take the young man off the market just long enough for the daughter to find an RM.  The daughter does and, in Orem fashion, she is married, say, 60 days later.  The mother than calls Bad Boy to tell him that they are through.

 

In this case, the mother has committed no crimes.  She is totally within her rights to breakup with (return) this young man at any time.  But she is dead WRONG.  She has falsely created expectations in the Bad Boy.  And yes, she did it to protect her daughter from such an "indecent" young man, but it's not okay to use deception just because you have good intentions.

 

 

When a store sells something they are forming a kind of contract between the seller and the buyer.  The very existence of a return policy as part of that contract means that returning an item, as long as it obeys the rules of the return policy, is acceptable.

 

In your example, if the bad boy told the mother when they started the relationship "i really hope you keep me, but i'm telling your right now that it is acceptable for you to decide later-for any reason-that you don't want me and to return me to where you found me" would you still think she was 'dead WRONG' if she decided to do that?  I'm guessing not.  Because how could it be wrong when it was part of the contract that both the boy and she agreed to when the relationship started?

 

If the woman returns the items, and the store takes them back, then the mere act of returning the items cannot itself being immoral.

 

It may be your opinion that it was immoral, but obviously that woman doesn't have to believe the same.  She can still be a moral person and disagree with you.  

Edited February 20, 2014 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

Unfortunately it is never commensurate. She has effectively advertised for that company.

Only in the sense that news outlets picked up the story. And how beneficial such publicity will be to the makers and sellers of the shirts remains to be seen.

 

But I remind you of what I said before: That was not included in your initial claim. You were arguing a theory that her mere act of buying the product stimulates demand. I responded in theory that the eventual return of the shirts for a refund neutralizes that stimulation.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

It may be your opinion that it was immoral, but obviously that woman doesn't have to believe the same.  She can still be a moral person and disagree with you.  

 

CFR.  LOL!

[frank_jessop]

Calling her a "vigilante" is ridiculous. She has violated no laws. Neither has she taken the law into her own hands which, by definition, is what a vigilante does.

 

You may not like or approve of her behavior. But she has acted within the law just as surely as did the store when it put merchandise on display which, arguably, is inconsistent with prevailing community standards.

 

She took it upon herself to be judge, jury, and executioner of the law. She took it upon herself to impose her religious beliefs on others. She took it upon herself to infringe on the free expression rights of others.

[ERayR]

People have a right to implement their own decency laws in their county by vote, regardless of the reason they choose the laws they do.  Anyone who thinks that someone trying to make sure the decency laws (as she understands them) are being enforced is equal to 'forcing her conservative values onto other people' needs to go back to school and learn more about the way that laws work in America.

 

Somehow I do not envision Enoch and his city as being too liberal with their decency laws.

[ERayR]

She took it upon herself to be judge, jury, and executioner of the law. She took it upon herself to impose her religious beliefs on others. She took it upon herself to infringe on the free expression rights of others.

 

She did not.  All she did is go on a shopping spree.