Now you see, this is homophobic, and it makes Christianity look bad, and I feel ashamed by association.

[C0ckney]

dom hélder câmara.

[molly bloom]

I don't know. When you consider that Christianity pretty much came with the coming of Christ, and the Old Testament was before that, I could call it barking mad.

Christianity came after the death of Yeshua. He was a circumcised Jew who went to temple.

[The Mad Monk]

Well, yes, as a sinless Jew he had to abide by the law until all was fulfilled by his death and resurrection. Even so, he recognized the difference between the written and oral traditions, and moral and ceremonial law.

Why bring up circumcision? That was his parent's duty.

[molly bloom]

Why bring up circumcision?

A. Because I've met several Jews who were not circumcised- that is, their mothers were Jewish.

Even so, he recognized the difference between the written and oral traditions, and moral and ceremonial law.

Like John the Baptist, and the Essenes ? There's a difference between Yeshua the Jewish rabbi before the crucifixion, and the Christianized Jesus post-crucifixion. The difference is mainly the spread of the Pauline Church and the relaxation of the Jewish dietary laws, circumcision, et cetera....

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, there is a difference, which came in the fulfillment of the law. What are you disagreeing with?

Also, Jews track their lineage maternally, that has nothing to do with circumcision or the lack thereof, and everything to do with the religious view of the parents.

[The Mad Monk]

Or are you saying that Jesus followed the oral tradition?

12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

[molly bloom]

Also, Jews track their lineage maternally,

Which is clearly why I mentioned it.

that has nothing to do with circumcision or the lack thereof,

In this country being circumcised is associated with either being a Jew or a Muslim (or occassionally, a member of the Royal family). Circumcision is a part of Jewish religious ritual too.

[molly bloom]

Or are you saying that Jesus followed the oral tradition?

No.

[The Mad Monk]

Even in ancient times, there were Hellenistic Jews that refused circumcision. They still considered themselves Jewish, though they were not looked on kindly by mainstream Judaism. Circumcision is a sacred symbol of God's covenant with his chosen people, and a Jew refusing circumcision is tantamount to a Christian refusing baptism.

[Boris Godunov]

BS. I`d never pass through their doors again.

A gratuity is based upon level of service. Period.

If you make it mandatory it removes incentive for good service.

Except it doesn't. Are you suggesting that no one in jobs that don't have gratuity give good service to their customers?

At any rate, read the link I posted. Restaurants have experimented with this and found the opposite: it improves service. When wait staff work for tips, they go for quantity over quality, since on average people tip the same regardless of the quality of service.

But as was noted, the only people who are upset about not being able to tip are the type of douchebags who see the tip as a means of control over their servers. Is that you?

[Boris Godunov]

Anecdotal. If the idea was such a success it would have spread (this guy talks about 6 years ago!).

No. Supported by actual studies. And it's not just one restaurant:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/09/05/050905ta_talk_surowiecki

Not to mention practically all of Europe and other places outside the US.

People don't tip worse on average for poor service. And it has been shown that things that encourage larger tips have little to do with quality of service. Male diners are significantly more likely to give a bigger tip to a waitress with large boobs than otherwise. There's meritocracy for you.

The prime reason the model isn't sweeping the nation (you know, big cultural changes do take time) is that restaurants often skim money off of tips anyway. They also don't have pay minimum wage in most states, and this model would need the servers to make a higher base wage for it to work. Restaurant owners are also, by and large, the worst business people on the planet.

[Wezil]

Except it doesn't. Are you suggesting that no one in jobs that don't have gratuity give good service to their customers?

At any rate, read the link I posted. Restaurants have experimented with this and found the opposite: it improves service. When wait staff work for tips, they go for quantity over quality, since on average people tip the same regardless of the quality of service.

That explains it's popularity in the industry. It's a raving success.

But as was noted, the only people who are upset about not being able to tip are the type of douchebags who see the tip as a means of control over their servers. Is that you?

Nice. The last time I tried engaging you in discussion (a couple years ago now) you pulled the same sort of ******* approach. I see your style hasn't improved. Ad hominens for the win? *******.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

[Sava]

Don't be so sensitive.

[Ben Kenobi]

When I ask why Sister Bendy is complaining about 'liberals' tipping him poorly in a badly paid job, I wonder why Sister isn't complaining about the CRAP RATES OF PAY instead.

It was straight commission. No workee no payee. I actually made more at that job then I ever had before and it paid for my school. Liberals of course were the primary obstacle to getting there because of their crap tips.

Personally because of the **** economy where I was at, I was happy to make that much. The following years I ended up working crap jobs in Vancouver which sucked even more because of COL adjustments. But - they were a little higher up on the ladder. Wasn't till I got here that I finally had a job that vaguely correlated with teaching working for someone else.

Not much love lost between me and BC.

A mind reader, and amazingly industrious to have served the majority of 'liberals' in the U.S. or Canada

Liberals think like MRT does - that you are there to serve them. Conservatives understand that you have a job to do and tip accordingly. I did ok on tips, but you figure out pretty quickly which jobs pay and which do not.

[Boris Godunov]

Nice. The last time I tried engaging you in discussion (a couple years ago now) you pulled the same sort of ******* approach. I see your style hasn't improved. Ad hominens for the win? *******.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

You've stewed over something online for years? I'd suggest you simply stop saying thing that reveal you to be an *******. Just how much does it enrage you that you can't punish wait staff with bad tips?