seriously honestly Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 A question for those who think this lady was out of line. Why do you think that we should not uphold a community standard and that we all should be subject to and cater to the appetites of those with the basest desires and the least moral compunctions?I don't think she was out of line for not wanting them on display, but I believe her method was short-sighted and in the long run, ineffective.
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 IMSHO that is not a valid reason for lowering standards to the lowest moral point. OK; then which community's standard is going to prevail my community's or yours?
ERayR Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 OK; then which community's standard is going to prevail my community's or yours? In my community my community's standard prevails. In your community it is your standards.
ERayR Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I don't think she was out of line for not wanting them on display, but I believe her method was short-sighted and in the long run, ineffective. OK but why excoriate her? At least she was doing something. What did you do?
seriously honestly Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 OK but why excoriate her? At least she was doing something. What did you do? Because she could possibly end up doing more damage than good. I don't like these shirts either, but before the story went viral, I didn't even know they existed. Think about how many people out there are now aware of these shirts than before and how many people will buy one in support of Pacsun. Think of the possiblity that Pacsun will refuse to accept the return, leaving her with $600 worth of semi-porographic shirts (money that could have been spent wisely somewhere else). On top of that, she's not even stopping the actual sale of an item she finds offensive, which means others will still be able to purchase the shirts and walk around advertising the brand. What then has she actually accomplished?I think there is a right and a wrong way to fight for something, and I believe her time (not to mention her money) would have been better spent if she had filed a complain first, written a letter to Pacsun regarding display and sale of the shirts (particularly in that area) and/or organized a petition against the display/sale. Just buying them and returning them later--even if they can't be displayed--still leaves them available for the public to purchase.
Analytics Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 OK but why excoriate her? At least she was doing something. What did you do? Because she was being a vigilante. People who believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law know that if you think an business enterprise is violating community standards, the proper course of action is to go to the police and to the city council.
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 In my community my community's standard prevails. In your community it is your standards. Welcome to the Balkans. Great way to run a country.
MorningStar Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I didn't watch a video prior, so thank you for bring that to my attention. I know her intention was to prevent them from being on display and not necessarily the being sold, but she mentioned she would buy more if they were on display again. This pattern could give Pacsun leverage to not honor the return (she is wasting their time and money), in which case she would stuck with X number of horrible shirts and out hundreds of dollars.Maybe she could attach clothing to the improperly clothed people and sell them for a profit?
CA Steve Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I wonder. If what a woman wears can determine the type of man she marries, would wearing one of these shirts determine the type of girl a guy would marry?
bluebell Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 OK; then which community's standard is going to prevail my community's or yours? That's what so great about community standards! You can get people to vote on them and then call the ones that pass 'decency laws'. And viola!, everyone knows which standards prevail. It's like magic.
bluebell Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Because she was being a vigilante. People who believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law know that if you think an business enterprise is violating community standards, the proper course of action is to go to the police and to the city council. Is what she did by not going to police first illegal then?
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Because she was being a vigilante. People who believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law know that if you think an business enterprise is violating community standards, the proper course of action is to go to the police and to the city council. She did nothing illegal IE; Vigilantism.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism Once she bought them she was free to do with whatever she wanted with them. She didn't even violate store policy. They apparently accept returns. It becomes a real sticky wicket if we enforce the law against one clothing store, and ignore a more "scandalous" clothing store next to it. Edited February 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Kenngo1969 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) I'd argue that the malevolent shopper isn't legally entitled to a refund because of the central concept of consideration in contract law. For a contract to be valid, both parties of the deal must receive something of value. If somebody purchases something with the full intention of returning it for a refund, and does it for the explicit purpose of harming the other party, I don't think there is a valid contract to begin with. There was no "meeting of the minds." The return is made not because the customer didn't end up being satisfied with a legitimate purchase--the return was made for the same purpose the original purchase was made: to harm the seller. ...And I would argue, as I did previously, that any "harm to the seller" (even from horribly malevolent shoppers ) can be ameliorated by such measures as a restocking fee or, if a seller chooses to be so stringent, an all-sales-final policy. I think that's much simpler for the seller than for him to attempt to "regulate" sales by inquiring into a purchaser's motivations (which, though they apparently were transparent in this case, aren't always so clear). While litigation always is an option, I think there are better ways of protecting the interests of all involved than to opt to litigate as a first option rather than as a final one (especially when litigation might involve attempts to read buyers' minds). Edited February 21, 2014 by Kenngo1969 1
bdouglas Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 This reminds me of something in the news 15 years or so ago. There was a video store in Utah County (Lehi? America Fork?) that had an adult section. They had a regular biz license and they were not disobeying the law by having an adult section. There was a big demand for the videos and they were filling that demand. Some local people complained, got an attorney, and a lawsuit against the video chain was filed. During the trial the objectionable videos were shown, and the defense successfully showed how the very same videos were available at the local Marriott Hotel a block away in Provo via cable transmission. I don't remember what the final court verdict in this trial was, but the whole fiasco points to a lesson. As long as there is a market for adult videos or suggestive T-shirts, businesses will spring up to fill the demand. The problem is not really the businesses who do this, it is with the consumer who demands it.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 She did nothing illegal IE; Vigilantism.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism Once she bought them she was free to do with whatever she wanted with them. She didn't even violate store policy. They apparently accept returns. It becomes a real sticky wicket if we enforce the law against one clothing store, and ignore a more "scandalous" clothing store next to it.Maybe, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There's nothing stopping anyone from complaining, or from taking other measures if they, in the immortal words of The Rolling Stones, "can't get no satisfaction."
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 This reminds me of something in the news 15 years or so ago. There was a video store in Utah County (Lehi? America Fork?) that had an adult section. They had a regular biz license and they were not disobeying the law by having an adult section. There was a big demand for the videos and they were filling that demand. Some local people complained, got an attorney, and a lawsuit against the video chain was filed. During the trial the objectionable videos were shown, and the defense successfully showed how the very same videos were available at the local Marriott Hotel a block away in Provo via cable transmission. I don't remember what the final court verdict in this trial was, but the whole fiasco points to a lesson. As long as there is a market for adult videos or suggestive T-shirts, businesses will spring up to fill the demand. The problem is not really the businesses who do this, it is with the consumer who demands it. Agreed.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 ... I don't remember what the final court verdict in this trial was, but the whole fiasco points to a lesson. As long as there is a market for adult videos or suggestive T-shirts, businesses will spring up to fill the demand. The problem is not really the businesses who do this, it is with the consumer who demands it.If I understand what took place in this instance correctly, our irate Malevolent Shopper's issue wasn't with the sale or availability of the t-shirts in question, but, rather, with their prominent display in an area frequented by minors. 1
bluebell Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I don't remember what the final court verdict in this trial was, but the whole fiasco points to a lesson. As long as there is a market for adult videos or suggestive T-shirts, businesses will spring up to fill the demand. The problem is not really the businesses who do this, it is with the consumer who demands it. Unless the business is breaking the law. Then the problem really is with them. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Maybe, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There's nothing stopping anyone from complaining, or from taking other measures if they, in the immortal words of The Rolling Stones, "can't get no satisfaction." Grease is OK for frying food. Complaining to the management may be more effective. Businesses are in the business to make money. Keeping a paying clientele happy is one sure way to do that. It just depends on what those other measures are.
mormonnewb Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I think she should have filed a complaint and waited for the proper authorities to take action, but I concede that reasonable people could see it otherwise. The real issue to me is the one raised in the OP: Is this good PR for the Church?As I see it, I really don't think that the general populace sees Mormons as wishy-washy Christians whom they wish would stand up for traditional values. I think they see us as moralistic busy-bodies who want to impose our values on others. I suspect that our dear sister's actions feed into the latter perception.
ERayR Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I think she should have filed a complaint and waited for the proper authorities to take action, but I concede that reasonable people could see it otherwise. The real issue to me is the one raised in the OP: Is this good PR for the Church?As I see it, I really don't think that the general populace sees Mormons as wishy-washy Christians whom they wish would stand up for traditional values. I think they see us as moralistic busy-bodies who want to impose our values on others. I suspect that our dear sister's actions feed into the latter perception. Since when should one base their life on what somebody else thinks they should. One should embrace Christ like values and act accordingly. It shouldn't make any difference what the gossip is around the water cooler. 1
Analytics Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) And I would argue, as I did previously, that any "harm to the seller" (even from horribly malevolent shoppers ) can be ameliorated by such measures as a restocking fee or, if a seller chooses to be so stringent, an all-sales-final policy. I think that's much simpler for the seller than for him to attempt to "regulate" sales by inquiring into a purchaser's motivations (which, though they apparently were transparent in this case, aren't always so clear). While litigation always is an option, I think there are better ways of protecting the interests of all involved than to opt to litigate as a first option rather than as a final one (especially when litigation might involve attempts to read buyers' minds). Sure, a company could tell it's good customers "no refunds" in order to protect itself from abuse. That is simple. But most companies believe it is good business to have a customer-friendly return policy. A company isn't required to tell their legitimate customers "no refunds" or "20% restocking fee" in order to be protected from people who would set out to systematically abuse good-faith efforts to give their good-faith customers a satisfaction guarantee. Edited February 21, 2014 by Analytics
Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) I think she should have filed a complaint and waited for the proper authorities to take action, but I concede that reasonable people could see it otherwise. She did raise a complaint. Apparently, she got stonewalled. Her follow-up action was well within the law and her rights as a citizen and a consumer. The real issue to me is the one raised in the OP: Is this good PR for the Church?As I see it, I really don't think that the general populace sees Mormons as wishy-washy Christians whom they wish would stand up for traditional values. I think they see us as moralistic busy-bodies who want to impose our values on others. I suspect that our dear sister's actions feed into the latter perception. I was at BYU today on assignment. While there, I picked up a copy of the student newspaper, the Universe (which, by the way, I was a staff member for, way back in the late 1970s). On the front page was an article, the first in a series about pornography. The second paragraph of the article was rather alarming to me. I quote: Leaders of the LDS Church have condemned use of pornography time and again, classifying it as a "plague" and "a sinister and diabolical enemy." However, according to a study published recently by the Archives of Sexual Behavior, only 5 percent of men and 13 percent of women nationally consider pornography to be unacceptable in all circumstances. Seventy percent of men and 45 percent of women consider pornography use acceptable in some circumstances. Now, I'm not endorsing the behavior of our activist in Orem. But if disapproving of and opposing the encroachment of hard-core and soft-core porn means the Church and its members are going to be viewed as "moralistic busy-bodies" in an ever-increasingly permissive society where what was once widely regarded as indecent is now widely accepted, I would only say that there is sometimes a price to be paid for championing what is right. That doesn't mean one should back down. Edited February 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Sure, a company could tell it's good customers "no refunds" in order to protect itself from abuse. That is simple. But most companies believe it is good business to have a customer-friendly return policy. A company isn't required to tell their legitimate customers "no refunds" or "20% restocking fee" in order to be protected from people who would set out to systematically abuse good-faith efforts to give their good-faith customers a satisfaction guarantee.What's to stop a company from being selective in how it applies its policy on return of merchandise. Edited February 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I think she should have filed a complaint and waited for the proper authorities to take action, but I concede that reasonable people could see it otherwise. The real issue to me is the one raised in the OP: Is this good PR for the Church?As I see it, I really don't think that the general populace sees Mormons as wishy-washy Christians whom they wish would stand up for traditional values. I think they see us as moralistic busy-bodies who want to impose our values on others. I suspect that our dear sister's actions feed into the latter perception. I'm as LDS as they come. I think she is busybody.
Recommended Posts