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

[ERayR]

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.

 

And just how was it dishonest?

[ERayR]

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.

 

Please explain how her actions are immoral.

[ERayR]

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.

 

She could do just what she did with the shirts.  Buy the sign and then it is hers to do with as she wishes.  You are certainly creating some ridiculous straw men.

[Scott Lloyd]

She took it upon herself to be judge, jury, and executioner of the law.

 

Please cite the specific law that she did that with.

 

 

She took it upon herself to impose her religious beliefs on others.

 

 

Nonsense. People are still free to believe as they like. She didn't impose any beliefs on anyone.

 

 

She took it upon herself to infringe on the free expression rights of others.

 

More nonsense. The store can obtain and display more shirts, if free expression is their intent (Actually, I think making a profit comes closer to their intent.)

 

The store could have refused to sell her the shirts.

 

And consumers can go elsewhere for shirts with trashy designs -- or make their own -- if that's how they want to express themselves.

[mormonnewb]

She could do just what she did with the shirts.  Buy the sign and then it is hers to do with as she wishes.  You are certainly creating some ridiculous straw men.

But she didnt BUY the shirts. She simply obtained them the false pretense of purchasing them for the purpose of hiding them away. If the store knew of her intentions, they wouldn't have "sold" her the shirts in the first place.

On the other hand, if she KEEPS the shirts, GOOD FOR HER!

[Scott Lloyd]

But she didnt BUY the shirts. She simply obtained them the false pretense of purchasing them for the purpose of hiding them away. If the store knew of her intentions, they wouldn't have "sold" her the shirts in the first place.

 

CFR that they wouldn't have sold her the shirts. For all we know, the store doesn't care who buys its merchandise and for what purpose.*

 

You seem to be laboring under the same tenuous assumption as frank_jessop, that the store sold the shirts as a means to assert its right of "free expression." It's far more likely that the store sold the shirts to make money.

 

*I don't think I have ever had a merchant ask me the purpose for which I was buying a product -- or appear to care very much if I bothered to mention the purpose.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

But she didnt BUY the shirts. She simply obtained them the false pretense of purchasing them for the purpose of hiding them away. If the store knew of her intentions, they wouldn't have "sold" her the shirts in the first place.

On the other hand, if she KEEPS the shirts, GOOD FOR HER!

 

The last I heard it is not required that the store know her reasons for making the purchase.  If they wanted to know they could ask.  You have no idea whether they would have made the sale. You are simply making it up as you go.

[Scott Lloyd]

The last I heard it is not required that the store know her reasons for making the purchase.  If they wanted to know they could ask.  You have no idea whether they would have made the sale. You are simply making it up as you go.

In fact, I'm guessing the store people probably knew what she was up to when they sold her the shirts, as she had already complained to the store manager about the display.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[flameburns623]

In all likelihood, the store probably is set up to allow customers to order their merchandise directly, so the brief removal of these shirts from store window display would modestly inconvenience but not absolutely hinder sale of these products. So the "free speech rights" of the maker of these shirts was never in jeopardy.

Also: this woman's protest action as a private citizen does not constitute infringement of civil liberties by ANY government agency at any level. It represents her own personal, lawful exercise of her own free speech rights to protest against another private entity's free speech: which she was free to do, since the money she spent was her own money, and the retailer was not forced under duress to conduct business with her.

The constitution EMPOWERS citizens to exercise free speech, it limits the degree to which GOVERNMENT can CONSTRAIN the free exchange of opinions among citizens. I can DISAGREE with you freely, but I cannot do so by means of force.

Ordinarily, in modern retail operations, sales of an item generate computerized records signalling to someone that such items are popular and should be targeted to be re-ordered and restocked. However, human intervention has to occur to approve such re-ordering: it is not totally, mindlessly, replaced.

These sales occurred because of a protest, which will have some potential for negative impact on the retailer if they are persistently insensitive to the issue which inspired the protest. The protest action will probably cause someone in Management to interrupt the just-in-time-inventory system from behaving as it ordinarily would.

The shirts will be returned, they will likely be shelved more discreetly, and the store MAY experience a brief bump in sales as some folks make a point point of patronizing this store to support the retailer.

This might then be a win-win of sorts: the retailer could get some minor increase in sales, the protestor will possibly have satisfaction of seeing the retailer market their products with some elevated level of sensitivity to the religious values of Orem, Utah.

My opinion.

Edited February 21, 2014 by flameburns623

[Avatar4321]

She is saying through buying all those shirts. That my values are so much better than yours that I'll stop you from buying those shirts.

 

But she really hasnt stopped any sales. She bought them. That will cause the store to order more and people will continue to have the option. Not to mention she is going to return them, which will again allow those items for purchase. There is no force involved.

 

Seems to me it's an ill thought out protest.

[flameburns623]

But she really hasnt stopped any sales. She bought them. That will cause the store to order more and people will continue to have the option. Not to mention she is going to return them, which will again allow those items for purchase. There is no force involved. Seems to me it's an ill thought out protest.

It COULD cause the store to order more: but because this woman has made it clear that she made her purchase in order to protest the DISPLAY of these items in store windows (not the SALE of these shirts in any way)--the local store vendor probably will consult with management and additional items will likely not be ordered.

Instead: management will watch the reaction to this protest. There WILL BE some backlash, as happened when Phil Robertson made controversial comments, as happened when the CEO of Chic-Fil-A made controversial comments about their moral values. Some persons took offense and made this known.

HOWEVER--the backlash against Chic-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty were not so economically effective as the community support for each. Chic-Fil-A was targeted for a boycott by certain groups, which was abandoned when supporters organized a Chic-Fil-A Day; Phil Robertson was suspended for a meaningless increment of time before social media protests drove his network to reinstate him.

I suspect this shirt outlet will be mindful of such anecdotes and--in a community 90% LDS--will not count on the support of a mere 10% to sustain their sales and reputation. They will realize they need to tailor their marketing more carefully to suit local community mores. As they would certainly do if the community were 90% Muslim.

[why me]

 

Also, the mall appears to have a "Victoria's Secret" store as well.  In what way would a display of T-shirts showing small pictures of lingerie models on the shirts be worse than the usual Victoria's Secret window display?

 

Also, if a person bought one of the shirts from PacSun and wore it, would they be in violation of the Orem city code?  If not, how can the display itself be said to violate the code?

I think that victoria's secret also came foul of the city code and they reigned in their displays. But it is also a little different since they are selling underwear. PacSun does cater to the teen crowd and young adult crowd. See link below.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-campaigns-pacsun-shirts-featuring-nearly-naked-women-article-1.1618961

 

You can also watch a newscast of the controversy in the above link. It seems that the store knew why she was buying the shirts and her plan to return them.

Edited February 21, 2014 by why me

[BlueDreams]

I suspect this shirt outlet will be mindful of such anecdotes and--in a community 90% LDS--will not count on the support of a mere 10% to sustain their sales and reputation. They will realize they need to tailor their marketing more carefully to suit local community mores. As they would certainly do if the community were 90% Muslim.

 I'd agree. Especially when the other 10% might not agree for very different reasons. I'm pretty fine with nudity, and thought she was stupid. But these are disgusting. It's like a perfect example of objectification of women. You couldn't get more perfect if you gift wrapped it. The image of women, for solely their sexuality (a number didn't even show faces), are literally being sold as an image for teen boys to wear. Yeah, not cool. And a number of the commentaries have shown a pretty mixed bag of both more progressive and conservative populations agreeing about these t-shirts for differing reasons (and others pointing out the stupid tactic and denoting the loss of free expression). So the idea of buying them all has its definite faults, but the stunt did give publicity....and in orem, where this'll play down, I'd assume the store will change to fit customer desires. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 21, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Svawd]

She should give the shirts to the D.I

[Calm]

19 shirts for more than $550 total, that is around $30 per Tshirt....that is indecent.

[Yirgacheffe]

But Orem does have a city code and these t-shirts seem to be breaking the code. The manager of the store did not want to create a store window display out of them but was forced to by corporate management. I think that the lady sent a message to the corporate bosses not to mess with Orem teenagers' sexuality. And to be culturally sensitive. I can assure you that corporate management would never do anything to insult muslims so why insult mormons?

I don't see that they violate the code.

[Yirgacheffe]

I don't think that corporate management would put such a display within the muslim community. This was basically my point. Orem is 90 percent mormon.

Is there a city in the US that is 90 percent Muslim?

[Yirgacheffe]

It has made world news. Here is the dailymail in the uk. Notice one of the t-shirts. Not very good for a window display.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562680/Mother-outraged-indecent-t-shirts-Pac-Sun-window-display-buys-567-DOLLARS.html

I saw a different picture of Mrs. Cox, she was much more pleasant looking, this picture is going to leave folks say, "boy I'm glad she's not my mother".

[Yirgacheffe]

But Orem does have a city code and these t-shirts seem to be breaking the code. The manager of the store did not want to create a store window display out of them but was forced to by corporate management. I think that the lady sent a message to the corporate bosses not to mess with Orem teenagers' sexuality. And to be culturally sensitive. I can assure you that corporate management would never do anything to insult muslims so why insult mormons?

How does it mess with their sexuality?  The idea that it mess with their sexuality seems a little overblown.

[Scott Lloyd]

How does it mess with their sexuality?  The idea that it mess with their sexuality seems a little overblown.

Consider Blue Dreams's post above about the objectification of women.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

I have a problem with this lady’s ethics.  She purchased the t-shirts with the full intention of returning them.  This was done to deplete the merchant’s inventory so that it couldn’t display or sell the merchandise to people who might be interested.  This is a malevolent abuse of the merchant’s return policy.

 

She reminds me of anti-Mormons who go to Temple Square to argue with the missionaries in order to prevent the missionaries from having the time to talk with people who might be interested in hearing what they have to say. 

 

When malevolent guests visit Temple Square, the Church should be free to make exceptions to its “Visitor’s Welcome” policy and kick out the malevolent guests.  When a malevolent shopper buy a merchant’s inventory with the sole purpose of disrupting its sales, the merchant should be free to make exceptions to its return policy and not give the money back to the malevolent guest.

[bluebell]

I have a problem with this lady’s ethics. She purchased the t-shirts with the full intention of returning them. This was done to deplete the merchant’s inventory so that it couldn’t display or sell the merchandise to people who might be interested. This is a malevolent abuse of the merchant’s return policy.

So you know what the stores return policy is? Please post it if possible because that would add greatly to the discussion.

So far all we've had are people calling her dishonest and other names without having any clue what the return policy actually was.

Also, does it make it less malevolent abuse of the policy (which will be great to see finally) if the store knew why she was buying them, and also knew she was going to return them, and sold them to her anyway without a problem with her plans?

[Analytics]

 I'd agree. Especially when the other 10% might not agree for very different reasons. I'm pretty fine with nudity, and thought she was stupid. But these are disgusting. It's like a perfect example of objectification of women. You couldn't get more perfect if you gift wrapped it. Women, for solely their sexuality, are literally being sold as an image for teen boys to wear. Yeah, not cool. And a number of the commentaries have shown a pretty mixed bag of both more progressive and conservative populations agreeing about these t-shirts for differing reasons (and others pointing out the stupid tactic and denoting the loss of free expression). So the idea of buying them all has its definite faults, but the stunt did give publicity....and in orem, where this'll play down, I'd assume the store will change to fit customer desires. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Dictionary police.  If women were "literally" being sold, it would be literally be slavery.

 

All that is literally being sold is a t-shirt that features an artistic image of sexyness. 

[Calm]

We offer a "Satisfaction Guarantee" policy on all purchases. Just ship your purchase back in the condition you received it, in the original bag/box and with the tags on it anytime within 60 days from the purchase.

You have 60 days to return any items that were purchased with the original receipt, excluding Pierced Body Jewelry and Final Sale Items.

PacSun will not accept pierced body jewelry, this includes all earrings. This policy assures our body jewelry hasn't been tried on or worn by anyone else but you.

PacSun will only accept swim or underwear returns/exchanges that has not been worn. This policy assures our swim hasn't been tried on.

All items returned within 60 days with the original receipt will be refunded based on the original form of payment.

Any items returned after 60 days or more after purchase date will be credited for the price paid either in the form of a merchandise credit or merchandise exchange.

Returns without a receipt will either be exchanged for merchandise or credited in the form of a merchandise credit for the current selling price or the returned item.

If you purchased your return at a PacSun store, simply return it to your local PacSun store, for your refund/exchange. If you purchased online, you can mail it back to our return center using our self-addressed label.

Merchandise purchased at a PacSun store can only be returned to one of our PacSun stores.

Buy One Get One Promotions Return & Exchange Policy: You may exchange any BOGO item that was charged $0.00 for items of equal or lesser value of the original value. BOGO item(s) that were charged at $0.00 will not be refunded. Qualifying item Refund/Exchange requests will be processed referencing the dollar value originally charged.

http://www.pacsun.com/customer-service/frequently-asked-questions.html

Edited February 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

... When a malevolent shopper buy a merchant’s inventory with the sole purpose of disrupting its sales, the merchant should be free to make exceptions to its return policy and not give the money back to the malevolent guest.

I am not a lawyer.  With that out of the way, sure, the parties are free to agree to a "malevolent shopper" exception (the store, by offering its items for sale and posting its return policy, including the "malevolent shopper" exception, conspicuously; the customer, by making a purchase).  However, contract law generally doesn't make inquiry into the "worthiness" of a contracting party's reasons for entering into a contract.  All it cares about is whether each party fulfills his end of the bargain (which essentially is payment by the agreed-upon terms in this case).  If part of the bargain allows me to return merchandise without penalty within a certain period of time (or for a partial refund, say, less a restocking fee [perhaps, at least in part, to discourage me from purchasing for "non-consumer" or "malevolent" reasons, which the store is perfectly free to do]) then the other party should honor its part of the bargain, as well.  If there is no contract provision allowing it to do so (or if such a provision is not a generally-accepted part of the way the industry usually does business), then the store has no right to dishonor its contract or to renege on its end of the bargain because the shopper was "malevolent."

Edited February 21, 2014 by Kenngo1969