gay waitress denied tip....

[Matt1970]

The proof is in her own words:

"Morales later responded that it took every fiber of her being not to spit in the couple's food."

The dinner is paid for after the food is served and consumed. The note, whomever wrote it, would have been read after the couple left the restaurant completely. No note accompanying the tip can ever cause this response. She lied with that statement. Her statement should have been something like "it took every fiber of my being not to chase them down in the parking lot and give them an earful." But that's not how the evening took place.

Hope the restaurant refunds the couple's money and deducts it out of her paycheck.

That is basically the smoking gun or Perry Mason moment or whatever you want to call it. Lesbians can be lying sacks of shit too.

 

[PokerGuy]

I didn't ignore them, I simply don't accept their word as gospel because they have even less evidence for their position than she does, lacking any firsthand knowledge.

Her own words prove that she's lying. Without any pictures or any other corroborating evidence (which in this case does exist), her own statement that it took everything she had not to spit in the food gives away her lie. That's simply not chronologically possible, unless you want to believe that the check was given to the guests before they got their meal, and that they paid and tipped (or rather, refused to tip) before even getting their meal.

Bottom line, lying scumbag got caught, and all the gullible PC whiners who immediately jumped on her bandwagon got exposed as fools.

 

[Abraxas]

Her own words prove that she's lying. Without any pictures

You mean aside from her photo of the receipt?

or any other corroborating evidence (which in this case does exist), her own statement that it took everything she had not to spit in the food gives away her lie. That's simply not chronologically possible, unless you want to believe that the check was given to the guests before they got their meal, and that they paid and tipped (or rather, refused to tip) before even getting their meal.

Only if you ignore her remarks she felt insulted from the moment she introduced herself based on their expecting her to be a Dan.

Bottom line, lying scumbag got caught, and all the gullible PC whiners who immediately jumped on her bandwagon got exposed as fools.

No more gullible than yourself, it seems.

 

[waggy]

lol she has a receipt? sure. so does the couple. they also have CC company as proof that they paid that amount.

lol between the two (and not having a agenda) teh couple is far more believable. you know..since they have actual fucking proof.

 

[Abraxas]

lol she has a receipt? sure. so does the couple. they also have CC company as proof that they paid that amount.

The company or just a screenshot? Again, faking a screenshot like that can be done with trivial effort if someone wants to.

lol between the two (and not having a agenda) teh couple is far more believable. you know..since they have actual fucking proof.

Except 1.) they don't have "proof", just low level evidence and 2.) you have no idea what agenda they have. You, like pokerguy, are every bit as gullible as the people who automatically assumed she was telling the truth, regardless of who turns out to be right, because you jump to conclusions based on what you want to be true even when the level of evidence for a position is pitiful.

 

[OCGuy]

Unfortunate thread title?

 

[waggy]

The company or just a screenshot? Again, faking a screenshot like that can be done with trivial effort if someone wants to.
Except 1.) they don't have "proof", just low level evidence and 2.) you have no idea what agenda they have. You, like pokerguy, are every bit as gullible as the people who automatically assumed she was telling the truth, regardless of who turns out to be right, because you jump to conclusions based on what you want to be true even when the level of evidence for a position is pitiful.

LOL

 

[DrPizza]

Abraxas, perhaps if you read the articles, instead of just looked at the pictures in the articles, you would realize that the evidence is NOT the same for both sides.

Both sides have a picture of the receipt - this is true.
But, one side produced the original receipt for the news station. And, they produced a credit card statement. The other side said, "uh yeah, we have it, uh, we'll have to get back to you on that, can't show it to you."

Now, the restaurant NEVER named the family to anyone. So, lets look at motive. Faking the receipt - unlikely to get caught, 15 minutes of fame, and a reasonable expectation that with that fame was going to come donations from people.

The family: wanted to set the record straight after seeing this fraud take place. They were completely unknown until they came forward. At risk for them now is their reputation - it wasn't at risk before - because their side of the story is *easily* fact checked. Or, Abraxis, are you suggesting that the credit card company is involved in a conspiracy with this family to make the waitress look bad?

edit: oh wait, you're a broken record. "They faked the credit card statement." Here's why that's easily fact checked - if the reporter had any doubt whatsoever, "okay, here's my electronic statement from the credit card's website."


Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the waitress did it. Perhaps the manager wrote that on the receipt, and pocketed the tip himself; or a coworker. Nonetheless, there's no explanation that explains away her statement about considering spitting on their food. Sometimes when people lie, they tend to make up too many details - and that's what leads to the unraveling of their lie.

 

[xBiffx]

The company or just a screenshot? Again, faking a screenshot like that can be done with trivial effort if someone wants to.
Except 1.) they don't have "proof", just low level evidence and 2.) you have no idea what agenda they have. You, like pokerguy, are every bit as gullible as the people who automatically assumed she was telling the truth, regardless of who turns out to be right, because you jump to conclusions based on what you want to be true even when the level of evidence for a position is pitiful.

Massive willful ignorance.

 

[DesiPower]

The company or just a screenshot? Again, faking a screenshot like that can be done with trivial effort if someone wants to.
Except 1.) they don't have "proof", just low level evidence and 2.) you have no idea what agenda they have. You, like pokerguy, are every bit as gullible as the people who automatically assumed she was telling the truth, regardless of who turns out to be right, because you jump to conclusions based on what you want to be true even when the level of evidence for a position is pitiful.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Who was damaged? The reputation of the family. Sooner or later someone will out them and the harassment will begin.

Fraud against the restaurant. Doctoring receipts. The owner/manager could sue the server. When she finally admits she made this all up it will harm the business.

again the family/couple have not been identified so no damages. That could change but as of now they do not appear to be damaged. Its a tough fight to sue for something that may damage or harm you.
Again Police digging into this for fraud is the right thing also I'd guess a donor could ask for a refund but again that is what their damages were so it wouldn't be a jack pot.
I want to say this was wrong and an obvious abuse.

 

[thegimp03]

This waitress should lose her job and have to pay back all the donations she's gotten because of this lie.

 

[Iron Woode]

Except 1.) they don't have "proof", just low level evidence and 2.) you have no idea what agenda they have. You, like pokerguy, are every bit as gullible as the people who automatically assumed she was telling the truth, regardless of who turns out to be right, because you jump to conclusions based on what you want to be true even when the level of evidence for a position is pitiful.

wow, I haven't seen this level of stupid since the GMO causes Tumors thread.

here is the only way to clear this up and show who is lying:

The Restaurant has a copy of their billing the credit card company for the meal. I am not talking about the printed out receipt. It should be very easy to look up the transaction or get it from their credit card processor. If it is the same as the couple's statement then the server needs to be fired and a public apology issued.

 

[waggy]

wow, I haven't seen this level of stupid since the GMO causes Tumors thread.

here is the only way to clear this up and show who is lying:

The Restaurant has a copy of their billing the credit card company for the meal. I am not talking about the printed out receipt. It should be very easy to look up the transaction or get it from their credit card processor. If it is the same as the couple's statement then the server needs to be fired and a public apology issued.

yeah they should be able to cough it up pretty damn fast. the fact they haven't and claim to have lost everything is rather funny.

 

[MiniDoom]

the recent yelp reviews on this place are pretty comical. this server basically destroyed the business with her lies. I wonder why/how they're still standing by her.

 

[waggy]

the recent yelp reviews on this place are pretty comical. this server basically destroyed the business with her lies. I wonder why/how they're still standing by her.

I was wondering that too. why are they protecting her?

 

[xBiffx]

the recent yelp reviews on this place are pretty comical.

Looking at some of the older ones, before the incident, and it looks like she is a terrible server. There aren't many that name her specifically other than the trolls in the new ones but there are plenty of horror service reviews in there. Not surprising I guess.

 

[Matt1970]

This waitress should lose her job and have to pay back all the donations she's gotten because of this lie.

"Morales later responded that it took every fiber of her being not to spit in the couple's food."

Would you hire her for your restaurant?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The company or just a screenshot? Again, faking a screenshot like that can be done with trivial effort if someone wants to.
Except 1.) they don't have "proof", just low level evidence and 2.) you have no idea what agenda they have. You, like pokerguy, are every bit as gullible as the people who automatically assumed she was telling the truth, regardless of who turns out to be right, because you jump to conclusions based on what you want to be true even when the level of evidence for a position is pitiful.

If a matching receipt with a matching date and a matching time with a matching price and a matching meal isn't proof - then well... seek mental handicapped status. Please.

 

[Matt1970]

the recent yelp reviews on this place are pretty comical. this server basically destroyed the business with her lies. I wonder why/how they're still standing by her.

Because they can easily find out who is telling the truth by printing out the daily credit card batch details. Right in there would be the time and exact amount charged on the credit card. I am sure they just want to stand by their employee.

 

[Abraxas]

Abraxas, perhaps if you read the articles, instead of just looked at the pictures in the articles, you would realize that the evidence is NOT the same for both sides.

More on this later.

Both sides have a picture of the receipt - this is true.
But, one side produced the original receipt for the news station.

Just to be clear, they produced a customer copy for the news station. First, even if they did in fact produce an original as opposed to a forgery, you can write anything you want on a customer copy and not have anything happen.

And, they produced a credit card statement.

Did they? The only reference I can find to a credit card statement is a screencap of an online account with everything blacked out but one line. In fact, according to the link in the OP, it is explicitly stated that screencap is the statement being referenced.

The other side said, "uh yeah, we have it, uh, we'll have to get back to you on that, can't show it to you."

Very true.

Now, the restaurant NEVER named the family to anyone. So, lets look at motive. Faking the receipt - unlikely to get caught, 15 minutes of fame, and a reasonable expectation that with that fame was going to come donations from people.

Certainly plausible, I've never said otherwise.

The family: wanted to set the record straight after seeing this fraud take place. They were completely unknown until they came forward.

Again, plausible.

At risk for them now is their reputation - it wasn't at risk before - because their side of the story is *easily* fact checked.

Is it? They are still anonymous. Nobody can fact check anything they don't allow to be fact checked, just try calling a credit card company and asking for information from a customer you have no affiliation with if you don't believe me. Also, you can't say for certain it wasn't at risk before if someone was threatening to expose who the mystery diner was.

Look, like I said, your asigned motives are certainly plausible, but they are far from the only explanation.

Or, Abraxis, are you suggesting that the credit card company is involved in a conspiracy with this family to make the waitress look bad?

Speaking of not reading...

edit: oh wait, you're a broken record.

Broken record you somehow missed in your initial post.

"They faked the credit card statement."

Never said that. Please don't put it in quotes.

Here's why that's easily fact checked - if the reporter had any doubt whatsoever, "okay, here's my electronic statement from the credit card's website."

That appears to be what they got if you read the article, and of course that would require the reporter to do that.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the waitress did it. Perhaps the manager wrote that on the receipt, and pocketed the tip himself; or a coworker.

Also true.

Nonetheless, there's no explanation that explains away her statement about considering spitting on their food. Sometimes when people lie, they tend to make up too many details - and that's what leads to the unraveling of their lie.

Again with the not reading. DrPizza, perhaps if you read the article or any of my previous posts in the thread on the topic, instead of whatever it is you were doing instead, you would realize that the note is NOT the only claimed act of insult from the couple and that if you look at all the claimed slights there is nothing about the spitting in the food remark that is incompatible with a final insult on the ticket.

Edit: Fix tag.

 

[OCGuy]

Get it...gay waitress denied tip? If I have to explain it, it isn't funny guys. Geez.

 

[xBiffx]

If you are gonna go retard go full Abraxas.

 

[Exophase]

Why did people donate money to her in the first place? "Oh wow this person did something awful to you that didn't in any way hurt you financially except being out a tip.. here have some money hope you feel better." Is that really how people react to things?

Or was it under the pretense that she'd pass it along to other organizations? If so that's a load of crap, there's no reason why she couldn't direct people to donate to those organizations, who would want to unnecessarily make themselves an intermediary for that...

The whole story sounded weird from the start. First, if she looked anything like she did in the Facebook picture I don't see why anyone would mistake her for a male. Yeah she has short hair but her natural features aren't especially masculine plus she's wearing makeup and earings. Her hair could have looked a little different but I don't see why the rest would be. It is possible that they expected they'd be served by someone named Dan or that her name would be Dan for some other reason and she misinterpreted them - apparently it was that comment alone that made her want to spit in their food. And maybe want to frame them into having done something leaving evidence?

Then these people are going to be so bigoted that they'd deny her a tip under the presumption that she's a lesbian because of how she looks (although they don't even outright say it's because she's a lesbian, but that's pretty fairly implied). I know people jump to those conclusions all the time but calling someone on it and punishing them for what could be completely wrong?

The real clincher to me is that I don't see how someone would be this homophobic but then turn around and say that they have no problem with gay people and have voted against people who do. I don't think someone who really openly hates gay people like this would then go to such an extent to deny it instead of trying to justify it.

I hadn't heard about the hoax with the black waitress but I do remember the 1% "get a real job" tip that also came back with hoax claims. Until recently I don't remember seeing reports like this at all. What's more likely, that people arbitrarily decided to start being especially mean to their servers by leaving nasty messages and poor tips for no reason, or that people have realized that these stories can get quick attention even if they end up almost as quickly discredited?

 

[Abraxas]

http://suzie81.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/facepalm.jpg

Massive willful ignorance.

LOL

wow, I haven't seen this level of stupid since the GMO causes Tumors thread.

I know, right? With so many people in this thread assigning to me a position I didn't hold, ignoring arguments I made, making circular arguments of their own, etc. you would think this forum is full of illiterates who don't even understand the basics of debate.

here is the only way to clear this up and show who is lying:

The Restaurant has a copy of their billing the credit card company for the meal. I am not talking about the printed out receipt. It should be very easy to look up the transaction or get it from their credit card processor. If it is the same as the couple's statement then the server needs to be fired and a public apology issued.

A good idea, certainly, but many here have already implied the restaraunt is in on it. If this is so, why would their copy of that record be any more credible than the copy of the receipt they seem to be standing behind? It is very unlikely the processor is going to release the information at large, but rather only to the restaraunt itself for security reasons.

---

Look, I will say this again since so many of you seem incapable of following what I am saying. I am not saying she didn't lie. I am not saying the anonymous couple did. I am not saying their receipt was forged or that the screenshot was forged. I am not saying there are no easy ways to verify who is telling the truth.

What I am saying is that so far neither side had put forward particularly compelling evidence. I am saying there are groups that stand to benefit from either side lying, her financially and groups out to fight gay rights by smearing those who claim discrimination. What I am saying is none of the easy ways to verify who is being truthful have been used, or at the very least reported as confirmed by the OP or any other media outlet I was able to locate. What I am saying is that it is every bit as foolish to rush to judgement now as it was to rush to judgment then. Disagree if you like, but if you want to consider that position retarded or evidence of mental illness, you may just be projecting.