No Tips After Dinner For Gays!

They didn't actually say they provided a credit card statement... only what they said was one... I think if it actually was the statement then this would be over already...

Still doesn't point to guilt... You could easily accusse the husband of writing on the customer copy and the wife on the merchant copy...

The mystery continues!

What are the odds that the customers knew that this was going to happen anyway?

But yeah, they could have also "tipped" after the fact.

But didn't the credit card company showed that the second, customer copy receipt was correct? Not publicly showed the information, but verified that the second receipt was the actual amount charged.

Who's to say they wrote that number on there while they were at the restaraunt? It's a customer copy... you're not required to do anything with it other than take it home for your own records... you could take it home and when this all flares up write on it then? You don't think someone has done something then when it blew up in their face denied it?

They said they provided what they said was a cc statement... they didn't report that it was an actual statement... if they had then like I said earlier this would probably be over...

This could be easily solved... I still don't get why the restaurant won't put forward the origninal receipt... makes me a little suspicious there since they only have the customers privacy to respect and it seems like they want to see it anyways...

right now the couple is saying they were charged the greater amount and the restaurant is saying they only charged them the lower amount! plus the waitress was suspended over all of this...

The reporter at the end of the video said she was provided one.

Ahhh... can't watch videos here... I just read the article and the way they said it made it seem like it wasn't kosher lol... If that's the case that they provided an actual statement then it looks like this is pretty much over... I'll have to watch the video when I get home...

They say in the middle of the video that they supplied their credit card statement.

At the end of the video the owner of the restaurant as how does she know that they didn't copy the receipt and she replies because I have a copy of their CC statement.

Tonight on Unsolved Mysteries: Apparently no one gives a ***about this waitress so *** em.

On interesting thing to note. At the end of the video they say there was some confusion during the dining experience apparently, I would guess at the beginning, the customers called her Dave. I guess from the video IIRC the waitress complained to her manager about it.

I just wonder if she was hurt about that and felt intimidated and took that out on them.

I know it has to be really frustrating and emotional for someone that looks like the opposite sex, but no reason to try to put someone through the mud over a mistake like that.

The family said that they thought the waitress was going to say her name was "Dan". Since the waitress's name is Dayna Morales, I'm guessing it was just an innocent misunderstanding.

I'm guessing that the person seating the family mentioned that "Dayna" would be their server, but either the family misheard, or the "seater" mispronounced it.

In either case, it sounds like the waitress was just butthurt at thinking she was being called a man's name, figured it was a homophobic reference, and decided she'd get one up on the family by posting a forged receipt on a website, thinking it'd never come to light. Boy was she wrong.

More than likely there is a policy that does not keep receipts (either by sending them to the CC company or destroying them themselves) in records to prevent any personal information from being leaked out, after the restaurant (or store) is paid in full. Merchant copies can contain the full credit card number, depending on the system.

I thought I had read in the articel that they still did have it... but were not going to show it...

The article said the restaurant was conducting an internal investigation.

In other words, they don't want to show anything because with two conflicting versions of the receipt floating around in the media, they want to be absolutely certain of which one is right so as not to make themselves look like idiots.

They've probably been busy checking their accounting paperwork and reconciling it with their bank and with their credit card merchant, to ascertain whether the tip was really taken, and whether the original merchant receipt has been altered. Assuming the family was truthful and the tip was actually paid, the next step for the restaurant managers is to weigh their options with regard to the waitress.

In any case, I think the waitress is screwed and will soon be seeking employment.

Erm, for tax purposes a company has to keep all receipts for a set amount of years. A store I managed we literally had a box for each month of receipts and stored them in a locked smaller room. You can also receive credit card disputs for several months after a customer bought something and we had to be able to put our hands on that charge slip immediately.

But like Flavin said in the article the management said they had confirmed having a receipt for that total but refused to release their copy.

That would be standard practice anyway - the receipt will contain information relating to both the restaurant and the customer that the public has no business knowing. Even if the restaurant blotted out the sensitive bits, they have not obligation to release it to the media.

In fact, they don't really have any obligation to do anything at this point, except save face.

Not anymore. That's what 1099-Ks are for now.

As for the disputes, there is also electronic records for that too. Just the paper gets destroyed because it is easier to steal info from (in some cases and software systems).

That's interesting.

So companies aren't keeping the paper receipts anymore for tax disputes? Especially a restaurant that might have a discrepency between the gross receipt amount and 1099-k amount, because of credit card tips.

For a new tax form/procedure it seems silly, to me, to not keep physical records for a few years and then re-evaluate after the system has been tested.

Companies may still keep paper receipts, but it is not required anymore.

As for the tips, those are broken out of the total revenue by the CC company and added as a separate line item to be included as income to the employee, not the restaurant. So, on the 1099-K, you will only see the total amount of credit card sales (broken out by month and also a total amount of the year) for that specific card. If your company accepts MasterCard and Discover, you will be receiving 2 1099-Ks at the end of the year. If IRS disputes the amount reported on the 1099-K, that would be on the credit card company, not the restaurant.

For disputes, courts have ruled that the electronic copy kept by the restaurant/company is good enough evidence, not just paper copies. Can't remember the court cases, I'm not at my office atm.

I was suspicious after how many other articles I've seen of this exact thing happening in the past couple months. I'm a cynic and am finding it hard to believe the original story now. I'll grant that the accused family may be trying to save face, too, but I prefer to follow the money and that tends to lead to the guilty party. Irritating.

I think it's time for people to start realizing that no matter what race, creed or sexual orientation you are going to have bigots and ***.

I wont say that society is where it needs to be, but in the end you won't get everyone on the same team and just need to learn to live and move on.

Haha this whole thing was hilarious. Seeing everyone get self righteous and taking the opportunity to bash others. Then it comes out that their side was actually just making the whole thing up to get attention. Reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse case.

False allegations of this magnitude are no laughing matter in my opinion. :/ If those people are truly not guilty of having discriminated against the waitress, they face the consequences of a seriously damaged reputation. I'm inclined to believe they did something to make *** of themselves, but that doesn't excuse the waitress for having lied about them (if she did).

In the event that this story does turn out to have been fabricated, the waitress will have taken advantage of a very real trend of discrimination for her personal gain. Even if she does not personally deserve the attention, the issue itself most certainly does. The censure of discrimination in general is "righteous" even if this particular instance was nothing more than a plausibly deniable fiction.

What the f*ck....

Confused about something?

If it's real, the people were ***. If it's fake, the waitress trashed their reputation for nothing and cheapened the cause of people who face real discrimination. Neither of these things is really "hilarious" in my book.

The outcry isn't just because of this one waitress. If she's lying, she knew she could get some attention because people tend to denounce acts of discrimination. She's an *** if this turns out to be the case, but this doesn't make discrimination any less real; people denouncing it aren't "self-righteous" even if this woman is a fake.

I normally take the side the of the stiffed waiter/waitress at first because I have seen what *** some people are when it comes to not tipping. Though recently when I saw a story about racist comments from a Red Robin (I think) something didn't seem to ring true and in that case I favored the customer being innocent.

I suppose some of it comes from working retail type jobs my whole life. You hear so many stories and excuses from the public you tend to believe the whole world is dumb.

I actually had somebody threaten to call corporate on me tonight because I was being rude and wouldn't do what they wanted. They wanted me to give their siblings free movie tickets because when they came in July the theatre was hot and smelled like pee. They called us in October to complain about it and somebody (no name, no description, just some male employee) promised them free passes. Now here they were in November to collect. I guess the only rude thing I actually did was after they started swearing at me I said I'm done with this conversation now that you are using profanity and hung up the phone.

So if they call corporate, I would love to see what their version of events is. So yeah, whenever there is a he said/she said situation regarding employee/customer, I default to the employees side. And if it turns out were lying about it, I'm more disgusted at them than I was at the earlier (but innocent) party.

If you automatically take the side of the waitress/employee, then don't blame us who either don't or automatically take the side of the customer.

While I know that people can be real shits about everything, I also know that it is a two way street.

There has been multiple times where the staff was rude, even to the point where I just left. I have left zero tips before, and I have also left 20% tips also. If the staff actually does a good job and is not snarky towards me or my guests/clients, that's when the higher tip comes out.

But people are people. Everyone have some bad side to them, so don't automatically take sides in any argument until you hear the whole story, because if you do, publicly announce it, then find out that your side was in the wrong or even worse, preformed something illegal (fraud, extortion, all that good stuff), then not only would you look like a fool, but also a jackass at the same time.

Since we aren't here to decide what happens to the waitress or the customers, all we can really do (and all we were ever able to do) is take sides on the issues that they claim or appear to represent. Since this situation is at least plausible in today's society, those positions are still valid even if the specific story in question turns out to be fake.

In "supporting" the waitress, for example, people express a preexisting opinion that this kind of discrimination is unacceptable. The waitress's alleged misrepresentation of the story does nothing to change this judgment or its underlying reasons, which apply to much more than this one isolated incident. People will still think it's wrong to withhold a tip based on the server's sexual orientation, even if that didn't happen to this one waitress.

If this lady lied, the only thing that changes is her personal entitlement to public attention--not the reasons it was given in the first place.

tl;dr If someone abuses public sympathy by falsely claiming discrimination, they are at fault--not the movement that they hijacked for attention or personal gain.

You are also forgetting that this lady benefited from said lie, and that people will see that and attempt to do the same.

Have enough people cry "Wolf" and people will start ignoring them, including the issue of "discrimination".

That wouldn't help the "issue" at all, would it?

Oh I'm not forgetting it at all. I very much agree! Lying about this is highly reprehensible and she should be made to return the money, paying out of her own pocket for the funds she "donated" to charity.

Assuming she really did lie, she will have falsely damaged someone's reputation and cheapened the idea of discrimination (which I already said further up on this page :P lol). I'm by no means defending her--I'm just responding to those who seem to think her actions somehow undermine any of the arguments against real discrimination.

The story claims Morales collected $3,000 in donations from people after the original story went viral. Supposedly “most” of that money was headed for the Wounded Warrior Project. Maybe NBC New York will follow up on the story by following the money next. The girl appears to be a pathological liar.