One person can indeed make a difference for the good. Bravo Judy Cox for
standing for the right.
She is giving the store even more publicity. She would have been better off
Brilliant strategy. A reverse boycott. Buy up all the inventory. Increase the
merchant's profits. Take away the agency of other members of the
community. Publicize it. Send a message to PacSun. What message? These
T-shirts are in (steamy) hot demand!What's to keep PacSun from
shipping 1,000 more shirts to the Orem outlet to meet the apparent demand and
generate more sales and profits? Now that this story has gone
national, I wonder how many people have visited the PacSun website or a local
PacSun store to see what they missed and maybe get their hands on what Mrs. Cox
has now turned into a hot item. Way to go, Mrs. Cox. You have accomplished the
exact opposite of what you intended. PacSun thanks you from the bottom of their
Good for this Mom! Why should we stand with our hands in our pockets while our
children and grandchildren are being brain washed? This type of marketing is
"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,..." What wording of this law says to me is that the
"city" has power to define what is sexual material. Money over morality?
Calm down lady!
Interesting way of combating indecent material, buying it in bulk and then
returning it later. It would cost the store trying to restock and make keeping
inventory difficult. No arguing, no picketing, etc. The stuff just suddenly
isn't available. Then it is. Then it isn't. Then more comes in.
Then it is. Then they are overstocked and have to sell at a loss.
Good for you, Mom! I just looked online at their website and if the t-shirts you
bought were what I saw, I consider them to be soft porn.
Presumably the return policy is for people who buy stuff in good faith and then
for what ever reason change their mind. Since this doesn't apply here the
store might decide not honor the return for her.That would have
occurred to me before I bought the clothes. Were I her, I would be on 'pins
and needles' hoping I would get my money back.
What an awesome thing to do!!! Instead of just complaining she did something
about it. Very impressive!!
Utah mom seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
She buys $567 worth of shirts that she plans on taking back, just so the store
cannot sell them? Better be careful, I don't think thats legal, or
moral...its basically stealing. If people look at that shirt and want to buy
it, who is she to ensure they can't?
A noble act but a waste of time in the long run. You can't hide the immoral
world from your kids unless you raise them on the moon. The real key is to teach
your kids values ...."we teach them correct principles and let them govern
themselves" Joseph Smith. by the way...who has $500 extra bucks
to buy up shirts anyway??
buying is "vote" to the company. you may keep other kids from wearing
them, but you just told the company to make more.definitely return them!
If only we could buy our way out of all problems. I guess one
starfish at a time makes a difference to the starfish but I think in this case
it's better to make your stand as an individual or a family. Since this
stand was so public, it kind of reminds me of the part in the Bible where people
prayed to be seen.
Judy Cox, you are a hero! I applaud your courage to stand up and have your
voice heard. I have gone into stores and complained many times about displays,
but never had the moxie to buy the display to get it out of the way! Mothers
everywhere need to protest the displays in malls, stores, etc., and have our
voices heard. Let's care about what our children see, wear, and are
exposed to! Thank you again, Judy!
I commend this mom for her actions. If more people would speak out against
inappropriate products, media productions and related items, it would make an
impact. I'm glad there is an article about the issue. Thank you for the
article, and thank you to a mom who really cares.
Good for Judy Cox. If PacSun won't respect community standards, the
community doesn't have to support them.
If your stated purpose is to return the items I wonder if it isn't a
stretch to say you 'bought' them?
"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"YOUR boundary Mrs. Cox. We all don't live by your
same standards, and not all of us are offended by the human body. They can and
will make more of those shirts and put them back on display. Also, you just
gave the store and designer a whole bunch of free advertising.....
I hate the "soft" porn my kids see at the mall.
Good for you, Mom! I have had the same feelings many times but this woman
showed her disgust with the only thing that gets real attention - her money. I
hope PacSun and other retailers sit up and take notice that they shouldn't
disregard common decency - especially in Orem, Utah!
Hilarious and a clear demonstration of deceit. She intends to return them at the
end of the "return policy". Her actions are all about being noticed. If
she really cared she destroy the shirts. If there were no market, the shirts
wouldn't be there in the first place. Despite the self-righteous Orem
slogan, freedom of speech/expression is far more important than any rooty-tooty
"I know better than you" attempt to determine how people dress.But, by all means, squeeze your moral fist tighter...that always works well
with the youth. Have to go buy something at PacSun..just to protest of course.
So I took a look at the PacSun website. The t-shirts are no different from
others, except they are more artistically decorated. I like them. I think
I'll buy a few hundred myself...
Curmudgeon,PacSun will be surprised when all the shirts are returned, and
if more arrive I hope they are bought and returned 60 days later. And
repurchased and returned 60 days later until the season is over and then SunPac
will have a real problem, 1,000 + shirts and no takers.
Judy Cox is my heroine today! I would have lodged a complaint, also, but
wouldn't have thought to purchase the offending material. And, unless the
store, specifically, states under what policies items can be returned, she did
nothing wrong! I am behind her 100%. Boy, I would have hated to take a
teen-age son or grandson past those display windows!
Why is an 18 year old man letting his mother buy his clothes? Seems to me this
is a setup for therapy for him. This store has sure gotten a lot of publicity
from this stunt. The whole chain will now sell lots more of them. Maybe even to
people in Orem. You don't like what a store sells? Buy elsewhere. Other
people may have a different opinion and want to buy what they choose.
I like the protest. Buy the shirts and return them in 60 days. They should have
another display up by then. Mrs. Cox is a hero, and is making Utah
more family friendly. I will now protest PacSun store and refuse to
buy anything from them.
Thank you, Judy, for removing temptation from our midst so we can make it back
to our heavenly father someday. You were a real warrior in the pre-existence,
and now you are furthering your spiritual brother's work here on earth.
Oh brother! Does she know that by buying them it generates in their system that
it was a "hot" seller and to make more of them, design something like it
for next season because it was a great seller? Everyone doesn't have to
share the same values, extremists are the problem today.."we teach them
correct principles and let them govern themselves" Joseph Smith.
Instereo,Yeah, the stand was public. But so were the t-shirts.
What's next buying up all the coffee at Starbucks every day?
Interesting way to address the problem. I also feel it is likely ultimately
counterproductive, because the company could very easily send more shirts. The
question is, what method would have been better? I would really like to know,
because I too would like to combat these companies that go out of their way to
help the world deteriorate even further. For what it's worth,
I also went to the website to check out the T-shirts. There was at least one
there with wording on it that I should think could very easily be removed even
in more permissive states on the basis of the wording's meaning.
Judy, you are a superhero. Quick, go buy up all the cigarettes and alcohol in
Provo before anyone else can get at them.
If only we could control (or pressure, or bully, etc.) other people into
submitting to live according to our "moral" code could this world be a
better place...sigh, for some reason this line of thinking sounds so
familiar....and yet I could've sworn we all rejected it once before...
This is definatley doing more harm than good for her cause. We wonder why
pornongraphy is worse in Utah? Maybe becasue mom's like this make such a
huge deal out of it.
A lovely gesture. Thank you.But, unfortunately (and as others have
pointed out) this actually sends a "buy" signal to the company to
make/buy more of them.
This has to be the dumbest thing I have heard in sometime. Her reasoning and
method is both out of touch and borderline illegal - buying something with no
intention of really honoring her purchase is theft of services. Plus she seems
to think she speaks for everyone. If you don't like a store's product
don't shop there. I've seen Pac-Sun stuff, I wouldn't wear it
but is far from pornographic. It amazes me that ultra conservatives scream
about their rights but refuse to recognize the rights of others. Hypocrisy knows
I think it was a great idea... a way to send a message to all the companies to
watch what they are trying to market to utah county. It would be better that no
one would buy these at all... then the store would get a real loss, everytime,
and stop selling the junk. But, instead, they will not relent, and
unfortunately there are people out there that think it is kewl to be sexually
unintelligent by wearing these shirts. If the store does not take them back,
then she should go forward with a stronger strategy.I do not think
it is immoral to fight immorality. Forcing the store to take a loss is, in a
way, theft. But, distributing sexually explicit items to children comes at a
much higher cost to society than a few lost dollars in a store.
Wow, what a hero. She buys the shirts, gives the company tons of publicity,
promotes herself and then she's going to take them back after the 60 day
period to get her money back. She's made a statement all right. If they
refuse to give her the money back because she got too much self righteousness on
the shirts while keeping them at home, it would serve her right.
Thank you Judy Cox for your efforts to keep our community clean. You have
inspired me to be more bold in expressing my dislike for inappropriate
advertising to store management and explore other ways to help keep pornographic
and inappropriate images from the eyes and minds of innocent youth. You are a
If I were SunPac, I wouldn't accept the return.
I know she had good intentions but you can't combat pornography by buying
It's hilarious how many people are celebrating this. Even people on this
comment section who would have never given Pacsun a second thought, or had never
even heard of it, went to the website to see the shirts. Guess what? Young
people are doing to same thing. I guarantee Pacsun has already made money
because of this stunt, regardless of weather she returns the shirts or not.
Well done Judy. You cut off the head, but two more grew back in it's
So she purchased the shirts and intends to return them at the end of the return
deadline for the now very publicly stated purpose of disrupting this business.
Sound more like fraudulent then righteous behavior. This store would well be
within its right to refuse the return.
Im going to be buying some clothing for my child at Pac Sun...
Who made this woman the morality police? What may be offensive to her may not
be to others and vice a versa.What Judy did is give Pac Sun nationwide
Victoria's Secret must be thinking "please walk by our store, please
walk by our store".
Hey judy the liquor stores are full of booze...go out and buy all it.
Judy...If this shocks you to that extent, then you had better not ever let your
kids near a computer, mall, cell phone, store or even school for that
matter....You are with your 18 year old son, who I suppose is about to go on a
two year mission possibly out of the US, and you won't let him look at a
public display? I have a feeling that young man is in for a rude awakening.
There is a difference between Starbucks coffee and soft porn or porn of any
kind. She is not "pushing her morals" any more than those companies and
others are pushing their morals onto us. Which they are. It goes both ways. She
just decided to do something about it.
I can see why Ms. Cox would be angered and take action. But I agree that this
action may cause more curiosity and interest in the images than would be
otherwise. But, I don't have a better idea, either. I just avoid the mall
and window displays, stand in front of magazine covers in check out lines so my
kids don't see them…avoid the evil as much as possible.
Good for Judy Cox. Maybe her method was not the most effective with regards to
the store, but what she did do effectively was demonstrate her willingness to do
- something - and not just shake her head and walk by. It takes guts to stand
for morality knowing you will likely paint a target on yourself for the mockers
to fire at. I admire her conviction to act and I support her opinion.
There is nothing pornographic about the shirts. This effort will do nothing but
make the very people you try to "protect" desire these shirts even more.
Why are so many LDS people so incredibly obsessed with modesty and
sex (gay or straight)? How about working to solve a real problem like childhood
poverty, slave labor, corporate fraud, discrimination, human rights abuses,
genocide, mental illness etc.? What a distraction this crusade is.
While she may plan to buy up more shirts when they get them in stock again, the
fact that she's already announced her intent to return them after sixty
days gives the store sufficient justification to refuse to sell any more of them
to her. It's a store; not a lending library.
So let me get this straight, this concerned mother claims to be all about
protecting the innocence of our young teens so much so that she openly admits to
committing an act of dishonesty and abuse of a company's courtesy to prove
some point? In this regard, she's no better than people who buy expensive
outfits to wear to a party with the tag hidden so they can return it to the
store the next day.Here's a suggestion for Sister Cox (I'm
assuming she's LDS), you worry the spiritual welfare of your own children
and I will worry about the spiritual welfare of mine. While your actions may
have come with the best of intentions, it goes against some of the core tenets
of what it means to be a latter-day saint. If we raise our children right, we
won't have to resort to extreme measures because we know that they will
have the moral agency to choose not to patronize places that sell indecent
I hope she never wanders in to Spencer's Gifts or Frederick's of
Hollywood. @@I accidentally walked into Spencer's one day while in
animated conversation with two grandchildren. After about five steps, we
stopped dead still, turned on our heels and walked out. They couldn't wait
to tell my daughter! We laughed it off, and they are still good, moral young
people. It never occurred to me to buy out the store just to teach everybody a
What actually was the image displayed on the shirt? Not that it matters.
Don't like. Don't buy. Would that not classify as less government?
This is an interesting story, but it makes me think a little bit. When I was
younger, I didn't really understand -why- exactly modesty was such a big
deal, and most youth in the Church probably relate to that. The subtlety of
gradual sense erosion and a true, matured sense of self presentation hadn't
yet devloped in my mind, I was focused entirely on a seemingly arbitrary,
outward-focused view of it: "What's so special about the knees?"But if this store chain thinks it's profitable to sell clothing of
poor taste even in a place like this, maybe that's worth considering. If
most of the people here are decent, then most of the people here shouldn't
be buying these clothes, and then the store wouldn't bother selling them,
as they'd be unprofitable.So dress modestly! It may seem
arbitrary and prudish now, but one day you'll understand.
To those of you who think that taking a stand in this manner is either dishonest
or counterproductive, what would you suggest? There is no way to defend the
"right" of Pacsun to sell "soft porn" shirts. This is not at all
the intent of free speech. We need to fight immorality, and if her actions cause
even one product buyer at Pacsun to evaluate his or her priorities, it is worth
Though shall not steal comes before though shall not covet. I agree
with others that it is theft. In theory you "rented" over a dozen shirts
that in all likelihood would have sat on the hangers at the Provo store, only to
return them in hopes that the store will take a loss selling them on clearance.
They still will sell them, or end up donated and worn by someone. By buying the
shirts you actually did something supportive not disapproving of the design. Imagine if you ran a store and someone "rented" every girl/women
sports shirt because they are immodest and neck to wrist should be covered with
nothing form fitting and every pair of shorts, shirts, dress, capris that
didn't reaching the floor? Only to return them and then your next stock
came in and the items returned need to be moved fast out of the store on
clearance or through donation? And since there was no supply your former
customers are shopping elsewhere. Everyone has a notion of what is immodest. It's at best dishonesty, a lie. A sin. At worst theft? You are
causing and encouraging others to do financial harm.
@ Jaredw007 - It is part of the core tenants to teach our children to make
correct choices AND publicly stand for what we believe. It is easy and safe for
you to hide behind "just teach your kids and leave everything else
alone" but it is only half of what we are taught as LDS people. You
don't know this? Why is it that we are ok with descerning when
it is appropriate to advertise smoking, drinking and chewing tobacco so it has
the least impact on our youth, but exploiting our natural sexual drive is fair
game and vehemently protected? We put helmets on our kids and pad
them up to their eyeballs before we send them out to ride their bikes or skate
boards, but we cannot touch anything having to do with sexuality? When we
consider the amount of money made (for the few) and the lives ruined by the sex
industry and those using sex to sell their merchandise, a mom cannot say or do
anything but teach her kid quietly at home? Ridiculous.
Won't selling out the inventory encourage the merchant to stock even more?
Will she be lurking at swimming pools and beaches with the Biddy Nation Patrol,
this summer?Soft porn? Some people are to easily titilated and so
attach sex to everything they see.God didn't create us in his
image because he was embarrassed by the human body.May I suggest the
"Burqa's on the Beach" as an alternative to Pacsun.
There is no law that says that a business has to accept returned items. If I
were the merchant, I would simply explain our "no return" policy on
those items to her and then quickly place the same items from the stock area
back into the store windows for her to buy again. If I can get her to buy them
five or six times, I will have made a nice profit thanks to her. And,also
thanks to her, I have lots of publicity that I didn't have to pay for, and
possibly I will get more people to buy those items, too. Maybe, I will even be
able to expand my enterprise so that it will be twice as big as before she
entered it. Now that you mention it, maybe I should check it out. SMOOTH MOVE!
@nanbwfor the sack of argument we will accept for a moment that the
shirts are "soft porn," to address your clams that it is not free
speech. The supreme court has ruled very decisively 8-0 in Hustler vs Faldwell
that it is indeed free speech. I do not like the way they depict women n these
shirts, I have taught my children how such depictions objectify the human body
but it does fall under free speech and they have the right to sale it and iI
have the right to not buy it and teach my kids why. What I do not have the right
to do is buy the products with the intent to wait tell the last minute to
return them in order to disrupt their business, that is fraud.
thanksfully we can disagree on what the definition of pornography and indecent
are. Thankfully we don't have to follow what many in Utah want the world to
believe. Its interesting to note that what the average woman in
Utah wears to church would be considered very inappropriate and indecent in
other countries - so its all relative.This lady has her opninion and
that's fineAnd I hope the store continues business as usual
since they and their other customers are entitled to their opinion and
don't need to have their hands tied by those who claim to be the sole
authority in determining what is appropriate and what is not
This judgmental woman has admitted in the article she is basically engaging in
fraudulent activity. She did not purchase the garments in good faith; she
purchased them solely to deny others the ability to purchase them for 60
days.SunPac should have a copy of her fraudulent plan that she
publicized at their cash register standing by when she comes in on Day 60, show
it to her and tell her she is being denied the return due to her public
confession of engaging in false pretenses.And then be sure to point
out to her the brand new window display of the same t-shirts as she departs...
Interesting! Let us know, DN, what happens when Judy returns the shirts.
What sort of outcry there would have been if the t-shirts degraded a religion or
homosexuals rather than degrading women? In today's world, it would have
been frontpage news and she would be acclaimed as a hero. Freedom
of speech includes the right to protest things you find offensive. But I
suppose if the offended society is conservative, it does not matter.
Oatmeal, Although I agree it if had degraded a homosexual it would have been
front page news, your argument falls flat because a significant portion of the
population disagrees that these shirts degraded women. Its your opinion they
do, but the opinion of many people(including women) that they do not. So sorry, it was a good attempt at an anology but doesn't hold up. Try
This individual has many years of travel and lots of work ahead of her. We
have all seen this done before. It's a little bleep in the media for a
couple of days.Perhaps was her spur of the moment thought?Obviously
she did not think it through. She must form a long range plan now to put a dent
in the evil see seeks to destroy.She could contact Mitt Romney. He could
provide the monetary part necessary for her to continue in her quest.
The article leaves out a lot of facts. In an interview yesterday on KNRS she
said that the problem was the fact that they were putting the offensive shirts
in the display window for their store. Had the shirts been in the store and not
on display in the front window, there would not have been a problem. However,
as it has been pointed out, they may have violated the decency laws.So, if she had walked by a Spencer's or Victoria's Secret it would
not be a problem, unless they were putting their sexually suggestive items out
in their display windows.
I hear you folks out there in Deseret do a lot of this buying stuff with the
pure intent of returning it later just to save a buck.Of course the
purpose of this is to save a child and ensure they have no opportunity to
exercise their agency and decision making skills.It doesn't help much
in shopping skills either, especially if the merchant decides to throw in a
hefty restocking fee.Put your talents, time and efforts to better use by
picketing the store, writing the home office , contacting your representatives,
petitioning the voters and hoping Orem isn't inundated by ACLU thugs
screaming about 1st Amendment violations or having some activist Federal Judge
unilaterally decide your decency laws are unconstitutional.
Way to impose your values on the rest of society. What ever happened to agency?
It's wrong when the gays do it, but perfectly ok when the LDS folk do it.
Hmmm, double standard much? If you don't like the clothes the store sells,
don't shop at the store! You have the right and obligation to teach your
youth about such things, and allow them to define their own standards and make
their own choices. Same with everyone else. You can choose not to buy such
things, and you can choose to be offended by such things, but you do not have
the right to take away the choice of others and define what is morally right or
wrong for them.
Good for this mom! I saw pictures of these shirts on CNN and was extremely
shocked. We need to stand up to indecency in our communities.
Redshirt, it doesn't make it right because her objection was the fact it
was in the display window. It just tells her not to set in the store, not buy
the forbidden articles. If violated decency standard call the officials. I
don't see why the store out the display down. Just order any from their
website with free shipping to the customers home. I for one like
30-60-90 day returns. That way if I get a gift from a family member they can buy
it before the birthday and I have time to exchange it after receiving it if it
is the wrong size. Stunts like this, and wearing an item of clothes only to
return it after the event will get stores to shorten their return policies. Bad
This would have been far more powerful and perhaps effective if the 15 minutes
of fame weren't so overwhelming. TV, Radio, internet. I guess just telling
mall mangement that you'll be shopping somewhere else until the display
goes away is too anonymous.
We preach free agency to choose from doing right or wrong.We preach Judge
not lest we be judged. Leave the judging for God.Apparently these
are only words that we really do not believe.My question is this:
Why can’t we do what we believe is right, and teachour family
members that which we believe is the right thing to do,and give all
others their free agency to do or not do that which they feel meets their
own needs and truly judge not.
@redshirt" they may have violated the decency laws."then she should have contacted the proper authority rather the take the law
into her own hands and remove evidence of the crime she claims was happening,
"So, if she had walked by a Spencer's or Victoria's
Secret it would not be a problem, unless they were putting their sexually
suggestive items out in their display windows."have you ever walked by
wither of these stores, their displays are no less "suggestive" then the
store in question.
This is like a real,modern adoptation of Don Quioxte's famous attack on
I don't know exactly what the t-shirts look like that were bought up at the
store, but looking at the company's website and guessing, I would dare say
that the sketchy shirts would be rarely worn in public. If someone wants to
shock, then this effort won't stop that (it probably encourages it).
Ignoring the shirts actually is more productive. And, if anyone, of any age,
including a 18 year old son, wants to look at whatever, it is a no-brainer to
get it on the Internet and other widely available sources (I'll bet he has
at least peeked out of curiosity). She makes a stand, which is fair, but the
results won't be what she wants.
What’s wrong wioth this picture:1. I don’t like
something, so no body should be able to do that which I do not like.2. I
do not approve of something, so nobody should be able to do that which I do not
approve of.3. I inturprete certain scriptures of the Bible
in certain ways, so anyone that has a different interpretation of
what is printed in the Bible is wrong.4. If my moral standards is
different from your moral standards, your moral standards are not as
good as mine.5. If you do not believe as I do, you are wrong.
I know a (Lady) in the state of Washington, that enjoys her own power tricks.
Once she upseated a Whole City Council along with it’s Mayor.
The power she felf from that removal of government officials was far
more rewarding to (her) than the (pain) felt by each member of the council and
by the Mayor and by all of their children and grandchildren, friends and
extended familys, (which was great).The same (Lady) also told
falsehoods, regarding a member of her own family, when she did not get her way
in a dispute. Of course, all was done, by this (Lady), in the name of doing
something for the good of all.I hope this purchase made in the Orem
department store was not the same kind of power trick just done for recognition.
It is not only hurtful, but shameful if done for praise and rocognition.
To "K" does it make it right that the store was possibly in violation of
local ordinances against sexual displays?To "Tolstoy" I
don't go to the mall very often, and on the occasions that I do go there I
don't spend much time. However, if things were as she claims they were,
it sounds like the shirts were worse than what Spencers or Victoria's
Secret shows in their windows.
So what we have then is a women who has admitted to an intention to defraud this
company and who has removed evidence from what she considered to be the scene of
a crime. @redshirtSo you have no personal reference to speak
of and are basing your opinions on a women that has shown such poor judgment?
FineDayProvo, UT" I hate the "soft" porn my kids
see at the mall."Then why do you allow them into the mall?
geez by buyin up there entire stock of shirts you have done nothin but sell
them, the simple thing to do is not shop in the store. You can control what you
see at home and insde your family unit, but morals are interpeted differently by
people. Is it truely right to force your way of life and views on another human
It appears the real problem is the corporate office. If they weren't aware
that Orem is a conservative religious community then they are living on another
planet. Why can't the store manager take the display down? Sounds like
the corporation is trying to micro-manage their stores and not let their local
management have any responsibility. Not a company I would want to work for.
Are they an offshoot of Abercombie and Fitch?
"Buying" (or more accurately, borrowing) all those t-shirts was foolish;
that just tells the store's computers to order more shirts and her
publicity ensures there will be buyers for the extra shirts, too.I
wonder why Mrs Cox didn't simply discuss the issue with own friends and
family. I suspect most of them (including her 19-year-old son) have already
seen plenty of pictures of provocatively-posed young ladies in skimpy swim
suits. If Cox wanted to organize a petition or something similar, fine, but
really, the best approach is to not buy the t-shirts or patronize the store, and
to persuade your friends to do the same.
Went to the website. Saw the shirts.Good for this woman.
There's no way I'd let one of my kids even think about wearing a shirt
like that. Yes, there are certainly more overt, immodest pictures out there,
but it is totally, 100% inappropriate to put these on shirts that are marketed
to KIDS.Not. Cool.
@shamrock So you think that a large national corporation based in another
state should no what a tiny market like Orem's political leanings are and
alter thier corpriate brand to match it? You also think that they should allow
each store manager to determain what the public face of the company is? I must
be living on another planets as well then because that does not seem reasonable.
Sorry that last comment was directed at nat t not shamrock.
To "Tolstoy" since when is it bad judgement to do what you can do to
remove sexually provocative displays from a window where small children can see
Although I own stock in that company, I think the shirts are offensive as well.
Please go buy all of them to get them off the racks.
So... In about 60 days I should drop by the Orem PacSun to get some racey
t-shirts on clearance? Great news, I can get some to wear and some to give as
gifts! Thanks!!Meanwhile, why is "morality" always about
sex, and never about honesty in business dealings?
@Stormwalker: "Meanwhile, why is "morality" always about sex, and
never about honesty in business dealings?"I have never seen a
group of people more obsessed with sex than the LDS crowd. I suspect
it may have something to do with dogma-driven repression of normal healthy human
emotion and physical expression.But that's just speculation.
@redshirt I would say other then admitting to a plan to defraud the
company, removing evidence from what she believed to be a crime and vigilantism
against what she believed to be a crime I guess she used pretty good judgement.
To "spring street" how is she defrauding the company? She will not gain
anything, and she is going to be returning according to the company's
return policy.If she had not purchased them, does that mean that
anybody buying those T-shirts would be removing evidence? Can't the
picture that she took with her phone be used as evidence since the lawyers are
still looking things over to determine if laws were broken?Is what
she did illegal in any way? Do you also call the neighborhood watch people
vigilanties? Is this that much different than a neighborhood watch? She
didn't try to punish them on her own, she is leaving that up to the police.
She didn't force the store to comply with how she interpreted the law.The irony here is that so many liberals are attacking this woman yet
they fully support the lawlessness of the OWS and other protestors that break
laws. She has not broken any laws.
@redshirt as to your first question yes it is fraud because her
stated puppies was to remove the product so it could not be sold and return it
at the last minute to attempt to keep it off the shelf. As to your
second question she would be guilty because she believed there was a crime being
committed and she removed evidence, others that went not the store that did not
see or believe a crime was being committed would not have knowingly removed
evidence. As to your third question if a neighborhood watch person
takes the law not their own hands and tries to stop a criminal instead of call
the police then yes by definition that is vigilantism and outside the scope if
neighborhood watch. The moment she decided to take the law into her own hands
instead of call the authorities she crossed the line. As to your
last comment, two wrongs do not make a right and does not justify criminal
To "spring street" did she break any law. You claim that she has broken
laws, yet she has not broken any laws.If she is guilty of any
criminal behavior, please cite the laws that she has broken. Don't just
give your opinion, tell us what municipal or state laws have been broken by this
woman. I would bet that you can't.
I bet she loves the attention.
@redshirt As I and other have stated above fraud, tampering with evidence
(removing evidence) and vigilantism for starters. If you would like the exact
criminal code I am sure you can look it up.
Redshirt. If would bother me more that the town I lived in had a sexual display
guideline. But if there were such a regulation and I felt it was being violated
I would contact the board that makes the regulation. Now she has
"soft porn" in her home where her children, including the impressionable
adult child she went to the mall with, can see them. She has given an interest
free loan to a company that exploited a woman. Brilliant.
Alpine BlueAlpine, UT"One person can indeed make a difference
for the good. Bravo Judy Cox for standing for the right."Nan
BWELder, CO"I commend this mom for her actions. If more people
would speak out against inappropriate products, media productions and related
items, it would make an impact. I'm glad there is an article about the
issue. Thank you for the article, and thank you to a mom who really
cares."holdtotherodPlano, TX"Way to go Judy.
Modest is hotest."Your message will go further when it's
spelled correctly..."hottest".Vala JohnsonHarlem,
Montana"Good for this Mom! Why should we stand with our hands in our
pockets while our children and grandchildren are being brain washed? This type
of marketing is NOT harmless."The retail world does not carry
product without an expectation of sales. I'm told this store has sold
similar product in this mall previously. If the above folks are so
concerned about exposing their kids to similar product why frequent malls?
She must be a great lady. I hope her husband and children knows that. I would
welcome an opportunity to meet this lady.
@ RebelThis lady is all about forcing people to live according to
her personal beliefs. Tyranny is NOT great....
If the "owner" decides to return the product inside the companies return
policy, the reason for returning doesn't matter. A refund has to be given.
This was a brilliant strategy. Let them get overstocked and then they lose
money. That would be a bigger message to the company than someone buying all
It is true that in the universe of capitalism this battle may be a difficult one
to win, but this mother's son or her son's peers are never going to
doubt the effectiveness of this teaching strategy.
When I don't like the merchandise in a particular store, I shop somewhere
else. But that's just me.
Didn't violate any laws. Just her personal morality. And perhaps those of
others. The shirts on display would not be taken down according to the city
council. Why is there no follow up here?
Buying stuff with the intention of returning it later looks dishonest to me. -dlj.