# No, you may not see my receipt. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 28, 2008, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529 "2008-09-28T02:36:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/61 "2008-09-28T23:08:42Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Having worked retail security, I can tell you that this tactic is quite frequently used by shoplifters who get one of their own on the “inside.” I’m not saying that that is what happened in the case you describe, but I know for certain it is exactly what the security guys in that situation were thinking. > > Why do you think there are security cameras directly over the checkout counters of the larger retailers? Why security can call up and monitor any register at any time? I didn’t think of that possibility. I was thinking more that he hid the item, and then put it in his bag, because the check is usually fairly cursory. I’m pretty sure that the Fry’s mentioned is the one I go to. > [@](#): > > And as for “taking down a license plate number” or “waiting for police?” HA! > > If you want to find a cup of coffee and a donut, call a cop. > > If you want to stop crime, defend the weak, and uphold Justice? > > Good luck. Let me know what you find. Living in this town, you are so right. But I doubt that any police department is going to mobilize the forces to track down someone maybe stealing a $50 item. Fry’s does not have alarms, btw. There is no place to put tags on most of the products, which are fairly small. I suspect there are plenty of security cameras around, since a lot of their inventory would be easy to put in a pocket. I also think assuming the guy was innocent because he didn’t look like a bum is pretty laughable. A professional thief is going to try to fit in. I don’t think this guy was, since he was buying other things, but maybe. It depends on he relative price of the unchecked item. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/62 "2008-09-28T23:08:54Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > I have qualms with many stores; were I to stop shopping at all of them for such, I wouldn’t be able to buy any goods. Seriously? That doesn’t strike you as indicating more of a problem with you than with the stores? > [@](#): > > And I do think I’m sending a stronger message by simply ignoring their request to see my receipt. Were I to simply stop shopping, they undoubtably wouldn’t notice my loss of the $50 or so I spend a month there, if that. I agree that you are sending a message, but we disagree as to what the message is. Do you think the Target employees who are subject to your brusque marching out think “That guy is striking a blow for personal freedom!”? Or do you think it’s more likely they think “That guy’s a PITA”? Once you’re on your high horse, people don’t always understand why you’re up there, they just see that you’re up there. > [@](#): > > Not that I believe my actions are of any great meaning or anything, but it says more than my simply cease shopping there. It conveys the message that I won’t deal with their bullshit policy (at which no time I agreed to) to check my receipt, which they have no legal right to demand (they can ask, but I don’t have to concede). Again, I don’t think that’s what it says at all; it just says you’re a bit of a jerk while still giving them your money. Whereas refusing to shop there – after telling them why – deprives them of your business and your money. And yes, they sure as hell have a legal right to make you show your receipt before leaving the store. It is a private company, and if they want to make that a precondition for letting your shop there, they certainly can. They can also make you check your backpack at the counter, only let you buy three of some item that is “On Special (Limit Three)”; or insist that you, Mr. Eleven Items, not use the “10 Items or Less” line. Because it’s their store and you have no inalienable right to shop there, as I already said. And you don’t get to approve or disapprove of their policies, as if you are only bound by rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or laws, you’ve personally agreed to. Now, you certainly can march right by them with a metaphorical raised finger when they ask to see your receipt. You can demand to buy a fourth cantaloupe when it’s a “limit three” special, refuse to move from the express check out line when you have too many items, or tell them you’ll keep your backpack with you, thank you very much. And the chances are that they’ll let you get away with it, because life is so short – and liability so long – that even at Target they know they have to pick their battles and decide what’s worth insisting upon and what is better to just let slide. But don’t for a minute think they consider you some freedom fighter holding the line against insulting and unwarranted suspicions of thievery: they just think you’re another cranky old fart with a knot in his shorts about something piddly. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/63 "2008-09-28T23:09:57Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Where did I assume such? By your claims that the items are yours. If they knew that already, they wouldn’t ask to check a receipt. And it IS your problems since: 1. You’re whining about it, and 2. You’re paying for the thefts. We all are. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/64 "2008-09-28T23:10:24Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Where did I assume such? Frankly, I don’t care how else they deal with it, but there are numerous other options. Undercover security, video cameras, actually seeing me steal said item. > > Again though, not my problem. As mentioned, no one can do anything but trail a thief until he walks out the door. Having someone right there surely helps. There was an interesting article in the New Yorker a month or so back on this very issue, with regard to high end department stores in New York. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/65 "2008-09-28T23:12:16Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Well, how you see it isn’t how it is, legally. Once I’ve paid for the goods, they have become mine. At that point, no one reserves the right to search my belongings unless they have a damn good, legally defensible, reason to. But this is not correct. Don’t you ever go to Costco? (Maybe not.) Legally, if you know the policy of the store includes reserving the right to double-check receipts after purchase – and you do know that, obviously – then by shopping there you are implicitly agreeing to accede to that condition. Don’t like it? Then don’t shop there! No one is talking about “searching your belongings.” They didn’t rip the bag out of your arms, they asked to see your receipt. That does not present a search and seizure issue and even if it did – which it doesn’t – you have implicitly consented to the search by going to shop there after you know that’s how they do business. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/66 "2008-09-28T23:13:03Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > It isn’t a case where they _know_ you have paid for it and want to hassle you. It’s a case where _they don’t know_ if you’ve paid for it and want to find out if you have. You’re assuming that they can know, psychically or something, that you’re not stealing. **Red’s** absolutely correct. **Red** also needs to chill the fuck out. **Red:** I never claimed my statement was how it is, but how I see things. I give retailers that courtesy, because, as someone who has worked retail security, I know the impact of “Loss” or “Shrinkage” from even honest mistakes is bad enough, without factoring in Shoplifting and Employee Theft. The Law is on your side. The list of things that have to happen in order to make a valid “stop” is so onerous that I’m surprised that any legal stops ever get made; most of those I caught were stupid fuck-ups. The pros took tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars out of our store. It eventually shut down. That’s dozens of people now unemployed; that’s people who now have to travel further for their shopping needs; that’s revenue lost in the community. But unless the bag checker was rude, threatening, or physically intimidating, **you’re being an unreasonable dick about it**. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/67 "2008-09-28T23:21:34Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Seriously? That doesn’t strike you as indicating more of a problem with you than with the stores? This is irrelevant. > [@Jodi](#): > > I agree that you are sending a message, but we disagree as to what the message is. Do you think the Target employees who are subject to your brusque marching out think “That guy is striking a blow for personal freedom!”? Or do you think it’s more likely they think “That guy’s a PITA”? Once you’re on your high horse, people don’t always understand why you’re up there, they just see that you’re up there. Frankly, I really don’t care that much what they think, or if my intended message is actually conveyed. > [@Jodi](#): > > Again, I don’t think that’s what it says at all; it just says you’re a bit of a jerk while still giving them your money. Whereas refusing to shop there – after telling them why – deprives them of your business and your money. Now we’re dealing with a bunch of hypotheticals. Neither of us can know what they think, so arguing beyond this point is really a futile exercise. Am I jerk for defending my right to not consent to their search? So be it. I’m totally content with being viewed that way. I think they’re being jerks by asking me to consent to such a search, but I’m guessing they don’t much care what I think either. And I’ve already sent target a letter detailing such, so now my actions are being upheld with words. > [@Jodi](#): > > And yes, they sure as hell have a legal right to make you show your receipt before leaving the store. It is a private company, and if they want to make that a precondition for letting your shop there, they certainly can.. Now you’re arguing a point I never made. Of course they have a right to “make me” show my receipt, as a “ **precondition** ,” which few stores outside of Sam’s Club or Costco do. In those case, I’m totally content with agreeing to their terms as a deal of my membership. However, in my examples, there are no such “preconditions” and such I maintain no responsibility to follow through on whatever they may demand precluding one. > [@Jodi](#): > > They can also make you check your backpack at the counter, only let you buy three of some item that is “On Special (Limit Three)”; or insist that you, Mr. Eleven Items, not use the “10 Items or Less” line. Because it’s their store and you have no inalienable right to shop there, as I already said. And you don’t get to approve or disapprove of their policies, as if you are only bound by rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or laws, you’ve personally agreed to. And none of those I take issue with and are barely relevant to this conversation. If they want me to check my bag, upon _entry_, fine. I also don’t take more items through the express lanes than posted, so doesn’t apply to me. And you keep this I have no inalienable right to shop there – duh. They haven’t banned me yet, nor have I read any reports of such from others who flaunt their receipt policy. > [@Jodi](#): > > Now, you certainly can march right by them with a metaphorical raised finger when they ask to see your receipt. You can demand to buy a fourth cantaloupe when it’s a “limit three” special, refuse to move from the express check out line when you have too many items, or tell them you’ll keep your backpack with you, thank you very much. You’re attacking a strawman here. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/68 "2008-09-28T23:22:56Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > By your claims that the items are yours. If they knew that already, they wouldn’t ask to check a receipt. Wait, what? They ask because they know people give in. I would also assume they know that the goods rightfully belong to me post purchase (unless they have evidence I did steal), hence why I wasn’t detained. > [@Jodi](#): > > But this is not correct. Don’t you ever go to Costco? (Maybe not.) Legally, if you know the policy of the store includes reserving the right to double-check receipts after purchase – and you do know that, obviously – then by shopping there you are implicitly agreeing to accede to that condition. Don’t like it? Then don’t shop there! No one is talking about “searching your belongings.” They didn’t rip the bag out of your arms, they asked to see your receipt. That does not present a search and seizure issue and even if it did – which it doesn’t – you have implicitly consented to the search by going to shop there after you know that’s how they do business. I addressed this in my above post, fyi. Costco is not an accurate comparison, for said reasons, and thus my original assertion is still correct, despite your claim to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/69 "2008-09-28T23:25:34Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > The Law is on your side. The list of things that have to happen in order to make a valid “stop” is so onerous that I’m surprised that any legal stops ever get made; most of those I caught were stupid fuck-ups. The pros took tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars out of our store. It eventually shut down. It is not at all clear that **Red** is right, and the law is _not_ necessarily on his side. For a private company checking all receipts, this is a search and seizure issue, much less a law enforcement “stop,” because it’s not governmental action. Because the action is not governmental (no 4th Amendment claim), there probably is not a constitutional issue unless he can show disparate treatment (14th Amendment claim). No disparate treatment here. No invasion of privacy claim because there’s little privacy to items you just purchased from the store itself – it’s not as if they are demanding that **Red** open his backpack or purse. It might present a false imprisonment issue if he were detained – but he wasn’t. This is not at all the same as a detention of a customer for suspicion for shiplifting, although even if it were, in many states a shopkeeper is privileged to detain so long as there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/70 "2008-09-28T23:26:39Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > But unless the bag checker was rude, threatening, or physically intimidating, **you’re being an unreasonable dick about it**. Unreasonable? That I don’t consent to a search I never agreed to? Particularly when it was extremely inconvenient? Fine. If standing up for my rights makes me a dick, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/71 "2008-09-28T23:29:15Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > No invasion of privacy claim because there’s little privacy to items you just purchased from the store itself – it’s not as if they are demanding that **Red** open his backpack or purse. Cite? Why are items I just purchased less mine than those I purchased earlier? And I never said their search was illegal; if they ask and I agree, it’s definitely not illegal. So long as I can exit the store without showing my receipt without illegal penalty, I have few significant qualms with their policy. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/72 "2008-09-28T23:35:15Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Frankly, I really don’t care that much what they think, or if my intended message is actually conveyed. Then you’re not realy doing to as a message at all. > [@](#): > > Now we’re dealing with a bunch of hypotheticals. Neither of us can know what they think, so arguing beyond this point is really a futile exercise. Am I jerk for defending my right to not consent to their search? So be it. I’m totally content with being viewed that way. Well, that’s sort of the end of the discussion, isn’t it? Gold star on your actions! > [@](#): > > And I’ve already sent target a letter detailing such, so now my actions are being upheld with words. Something you did not initially say, of course. > [@](#): > > Now you’re arguing a point I never made. Of course they have a right to “make me” show my receipt, as a “ **precondition** ,” which few stores outside of Sam’s Club or Costco do. In those case, I’m totally content with agreeing to their terms as a deal of my membership. However, in my examples, there are no such “preconditions” and such I maintain no responsibility to follow through on whatever they may demand precluding one. This is mere semantics. You know they do it. How can you say that when you go there, you’re not on notice that they do it? Just that they didn’t tell you the right way, by posting a sign or putting it in a membership agreement? What if they _did_ post a sign? Would you feel better about the practice then? This is how they do business, and you know it, and you know it before you even set foot in the store. So how can you say you are unaware that of it as a condition of you shopping there, of which you are aware _before_ you even go in? > [@](#): > > And none of those I take issue with and are barely relevant to this conversation. If they want me to check my bag, upon _entry_, fine. I also don’t take more items through the express lanes than posted, so doesn’t apply to me. And you keep this I have no inalienable right to shop there – duh. They haven’t banned me yet, nor have I read any reports of such from others who flaunt their receipt policy. You don’t get to decide what’s relevant to the conversation, and these other scenarios are obviously completely relevant. They are further examples of customers being a pain in the ass based upon rights they believe they have or even just their own knowledge that they can be a pain in the ass and get away with it, because it’s probably too much trouble to check their behavior. The fact that you personally are a different _variety_ of pain in the ass, for what you personally think are better reasons, doesn’t mean that’s not an equally accurate descriptor in all those examples. > [@](#): > > You’re attacking a strawman here. Is that the sum total of your response? Then: “No, I’m not.” ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/73 "2008-09-28T23:36:13Z")
A good overview of pertinent laws: [Loss Prevention: Retail Store Exit Bag Checks.](http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm) [Shoplifting: Probable Cause.](http://www.crimedoctor.com/loss_prevention_3.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/74 "2008-09-28T23:36:19Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > I addressed this in my above post, fyi. Costco is not an accurate comparison, for said reasons, and thus my original assertion is still correct, despite your claim to the contrary. You’re not the arbiter of your own correctness, I’m afraid, though it’s clear you wish you were. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/75 "2008-09-28T23:37:22Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > You’re not the arbiter of your own correctness, I’m afraid, though it’s clear you wish you were. Likewise. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/76 "2008-09-28T23:37:58Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Unreasonable? That I don’t consent to a search I never agreed to? Particularly when it was extremely inconvenient? > > Fine. If standing up for my rights makes me a dick, so be it. Except it’s not a search, so it’s not implicating any right you have. But why are we still discussing it? You’re completely okay with your dickishness anyway, so I don’t see why you’d have to insist on an underlying right to support it. No one can stop you from being a dick anyhow, so just go out and live it up. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/77 "2008-09-28T23:47:12Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Likewise. Of course, likewise! All I am pointing out is the possibility that you may be wrong in your analysis, and pointing out that not everyone will agree that you’ve stricken a blow against “further erosion of our rights.” If you were only looking for posts from people who agreed with you, you should have put that in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/78 "2008-09-28T23:50:32Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > Cite? Why are items I just purchased less mine than those I purchased earlier? And I never said their search was illegal; if they ask and I agree, it’s definitely not illegal. So long as I can exit the store without showing my receipt without illegal penalty, I have few significant qualms with their policy. Not that you’re asking me, Jodi seems to be doing a good job of handing you your ass but you might want to reread your response in post #58. It sure seems like you’re saying that those items are yours legally because you bought them at the register. Your refusal to show your receipt further backs up your assertion that they have no right to review “your” items. A side thought: this will now become a “What if” question I use with my dates. Most people I know keep an eye on how a new date treats wait staff in restaurants, and this will be one of my “conversation pieces” to help grade someone’s sanity and PITA percentage. Yes, I realize people should stand up against unreasonable requests. This is not an unreasonable request. People who defending this position to the nth power strike me as dancing on the line of nuttiness. So, I thank them for giving me another topic to use to gauge dates. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/79 "2008-09-28T23:50:46Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Of course, likewise! All I am pointing out is the possibility that you may be wrong in your analysis, and pointing out that not everyone will agree that you’ve stricken a blow against “further erosion of our rights.” If you were only looking for posts from people who agreed with you, you should have put that in the OP. _sigh_ Of course people are going to disagree with me; when has there been a discussion where that hasn’t been the case? And I wasn’t looking for a virtual BJ from all the posters here, hence why I’ve taken the time to discuss with those who did disagree, in what I would consider to be a very civil manner (though I can’t say that for some of the others). ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529/80 "2008-09-28T23:55:13Z")
> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#): > > Not that you’re asking me, Jodi seems to be doing a good job of handing you your ass but you might want to reread your response in post #58. It sure seems like you’re saying that those items are yours legally because you bought them at the register. Your refusal to show your receipt further backs up your assertion that they have no right to review “your” items. Huh? Of course I said those items are legally mine – that’s what I’ve been saying the entire time! > [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#): > > A side thought: this will now become a “What if” question I use with my dates. Most people I know keep an eye on how a new date treats wait staff in restaurants, and this will be one of my “conversation pieces” to help grade someone’s sanity and PITA percentage. Cool, because if someone asks me this question now on a first date for said reasons, I’ll know they’re not worth my time. > [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#): > > Yes, I realize people should stand up against unreasonable requests. This is not an unreasonable request. I disagree, even more so when my arms are stuffed to the gills with their shit that I rightfully purchased. Now if they saw me trying to smuggle that table in my pants, then I’d have less of an issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-you-may-not-see-my-receipt/465529.md?page=5)