"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:402C1786.6D26B9EF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alexander Cain wrote:
> >
> > "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:402C06E5.8B96CFBE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Alexander Cain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > > news:BTR1702-5F829E.18573811022004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > > It says nothing about discrimination based on lack of tipping.
If
they
> > > > > want to do it, there's nothing illegal about it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes there is.
> > >
> > > ** PLONK **
> >
> > Yea don't let the point get to you or anything.
>
> (It's a manual PLONK, so I'll comment again.)
>
What the fuck is a manual PLONK? You either PLONK or you don't, idiot.
> 1. Discrimination on the basis of past tipping is
> perfectly legal, even in California, which bans
> discrimination except for business-related reasons.
This WOULD NOT be a business related reason. This is a bunch of greedy
pizza boys pissed off because they didn't receive what was OPTIONAL for
service.
>
> 2. Publishing a list of non-tippers MAY violate
> privacy rights.
"MAY?"
Where did you get your law degree? Clueless U?
If done without the permission
> of the owner or of the chain, it may constitute
> a trade secret violation. (Customer lists are usually
> considered trade secrets.) It may be libel, but only
> if false and not researched.
>
> There may be other reasons why it may be illegal, but
> "interference with a business relationship" is not
> among them.
|
