If it was just the receipt I would say its still up in the air. But the fact that the customer also produced the credit card receipt puts it way in their favor. They were never named specifically in the news so there was no need for them to come forward to clear their name.
Here is the actual story, not the retold version. The customers came forward to the local NBC affiliate.
Labby, you’d have gotten a lot more traction if you’d accused Czarcasm of avoiding “servers getting stiffed because of their gayness”. As far as I know, no one has claimed “attention-seeking assholes going to facebook and media outlets with sensational stories” and anyway being skeptical of that would be the opposite of the lesson learned here.
I think that even if these two stories were initially true, they didn’t deserve the news coverage they originally got.
People are assholes and assholes sometimes stiff people for asshole reasons. While it’s shitty, it’s not really news.
I wouldn’t be surprised if she started feeling like everything had spiraled out of control, and decided to donate the funds that were coming in.
I don’t think anyone could have possibly taken her tip out of that credit card payment. Most servers have to punch in the number of the actual reciepts into the machine at the end of the night. Those numbers are different that the amounts charged when it is initally swiped. Since the credit card statement shows the $111 amount, we pretty much know she’s lying.
$18 on a $93 bill. Not a bad tip.
Not sure what you mean here. We shouldn’t be skeptical of attention seeking assholes and their sensational stories?
Because I’m positive that the OP didn’t mean we should be skeptical “that gays are being discriminated against”. Do you think that’s a reasonable assumption?
I didn’t avoid any other possibility-I just didn’t list every damn one of them. I even left an opening for other posters to bring up other possibilities.
Nothing more than a modern day scam.
1> Claim not tipped and receipt says bad things.
2> Get Publicity
3> Profit
Damn close to 20%.
Which I did.
We could stop assuming and ask the OP…but I already did that, didn’t I?
Didn’t get an answer yet, but he she/he did go on about outrage porn coming almost exclusively from the Liberal media.
Yeah, I didn’t get an answer to post #14 yet. I guess we’re both shit out of luck.
ETA: If the OP does, in fact, turn out to be the kind of person who honeslty doesn’t believe that gays are discriminated against, then consider my apology already offered. I mean that.
Totally. Which is why someone ranting about this (even in a mild, MPSIMS sort of way) has an air of, um, maybe not homophobia, but just anti-people-who-care-about-gays (aka liberals) feel to it. The problem the OP has seems to be that people are suckered all the time these days by lying gays, and we should be skeptical of gay people’s claims of discrimination in the future, 'cause they’re probably lying. And it’s sickening what those people do.
Truly a problem. “Be skeptical, and late to the bandwagon” is my motto.
The op said we should be skeptical of such stories. Czarcasm asked if he meant skeptical of gay discrimination or server stiffing which he knows and we know do actually happen. What he didn’t ask was if we should be skeptical of is people getting stiffed because they’re gay, which we probably should and which was pretty obviously what was meant by the OP.
You created a new claim of “attention-seeking assholes going to media outlets with sensational stories” as a claim that Czarcasm skipped. But that doesn’t fit because that’s not a claim we should be skeptical of. That’s probably what our starting assumption should be.
Wrong on the first part, right on the second. What I thought wasn’t apparently apparent, because I was actually puzzled as to what the OP would have society question. I never said that the two options were the most reasonable-they were the two that popped out first. Figuring that there were probably other options, I left room for others to bring them up.
Okay, so you didn’t understand that “attention seeking assholes” was what I meant we should be skeptical of? Okay, consider this matter cleared up for you. “Claims made by attention seeking assholes” would have been a better way for me to phrase it.
Okay. I don’t believe you, but I’m glad you cleared up the fact that you want us to believe you honestly thought there was a possibilty that the OP doesn’t think waitstaff ever get stiffed.
I’ve queried the OP twice now as to what he means, with no response yet.
I don’t know what the OP believes because the OP won’t respond.
Yes, you’ve posted that 3 times now. We all get that the OP is smart enough not to respond to someone who is baiting him. I wish I was that smart.