There is some good and some bad to the way in which corns have been bred over the last thirty-forty years or so...
The good aspect, although one I find a bit personally distasteful, is the manner in which they have been used as the species that layed the groundwork for our understanding of color, pigment, pattern and the causes and additional factors that come into play when looking at these conditions in reptiles... Call them the guppies of snakes, they are capable of displaying such a wide range of patterns that virtually everyone can find one they like.
Some of those patterns and colors are frequently naturally occuring, some associated with particular ranges of animals, some simply cropping up throughout the species as a product of phenotypal elasticity... and some that, while more often than not, were originally found in "the wild" aren't really naturally viable phenotypes and can be considered real flukes and mutants (Or miracles of nature I suppose, depends on your perspective).
The upside to this is, of course, the fact that the species has really greatly increased our knowledge of how color and pattern work in reptiles.
The downside is that, due to the popularity the species enjoys as a pet and due to the fact that, no matter how well doccumented and undertood it might be, some people will simply mix things indiscriminantly. It's come to the point where phenotype is a really poor indicator of genotype for the species as a whole, with a few breeders being considered trustworthy for representing their animal's genetics in an honest manner and the rest being... just corn snakes... where you cross two of what a lot of people call an Okeetee and the offspring end up being a snow, two amels, a candy cane and an anery.
It has gotten to the point where Locality has become confused with pattern or morph... Morphs are often not represented properly... and the chances of finding a "true" locality ANYTHING with verifiable lineage are so low as to be nearly impossible (As was mentioned, Okeetee locale specific is not the same as just "Looking" like an okeetee and not all animals from Okeetee will look like the pattern that is associated with the name).
The situation is not helped by people who don't know any better buying two of anything they think looks neat and crossing them... especially when the animals they're crossing are Petco stock from Gourmet Rodent and the genotype is already screwed up to start. It's no use trying to explain it to most of them either... I've worked in aquarium shops before... people will purchase two animals of the same species displaying different phenotypes and posessing a properly represented genotype... patterns that it took people selectively breeding for decades at a time some of them... and cross them "To see what happens" fully thinking that this is somehow making them look like they're grand scientists performing serious work in the field of icthyology. Reptiles where a large variety of captive colorations are avaliable are the same way. There are people capable of experimenting to see what sort of offspring are produced... but they also have a grasp of mendelian genetics and the physiological basis for color and... most importantly, will properly represent any animals sold.
Which is what it really comes down to... some people sell things under the proper label, others will fail to represent genetics properly. Some... the really good guys... will even let you know when a female was bred with other genotypes and let you know that there is a tiny possibility of sperm retention.
Is Glades in the wrong here for labeling the animals as Okeetee?
I would tend to say no... Robroy is an honest guy who understands the fact that proper representation is needed, he's been in business a long time and people can't stay that way by screwing up. As you said... when asked, Glades was up front about the fact that the animals are "okeetee phase" rather than "Okeetee locality" so the only way what they are doing is immoral or somehow wrong is if all those people selling BCI as "red tails" are crooks or all those people who don't list the subspecies of their leopard geckos are con artists. Since that's obviously not the case and Glades was honest and up front when questioned, there's nothing immoral about advertising the animals the way they are. The term has become synonymous with the phase in common use, inaccurate perhaps, but it's reality.