Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip

More | Report Post

Hey Sharwinston, have you ever heard of Dunahoo v. Huber. This
case contradicts your assumption that tipping has nothing to do
with the Constitution. In fact, it paints you out to be nothing
but a liar.

Here is a fact very few people know.

In the early part of the 1900's several states passed laws
prohibiting tipping. Here is how it turned out.

Dunahoo v. Huber, 185 Iowa 753 (1919) (statute violates the
state privileges & immunities clause because there was no
reasonable grounds for allowing employers to accept tips and
prohibiting employees from accepting tips when "engaged in like
services".") Ex Parte Farb, 178 Cal. 592 (1918) (statute
violates the due process provisions of the U.S.Constitution and
the freedom of contract provision of the California
constitution).

Anti-tipping statutes were repealed in Arkansas, Mississippi,
South Carolina and Tennessee in 1925, 1926, 1922, and 1925,
respectively.

I guess you are the one assuming here.

On 3/11/09, sharwinston wrote:
> No. Tipping has nothing to do with the Constitution.
> Explanation: Tipping has nothing to do with the Constition.
> Harm: No. Tipping has nothing to do with the Constitution.
>
> On 1/27/09, George wrote:
>> Does a customer have a constitutional right to determine
>> who is legally entitled to his tip?
>>
>> If your answer is NO, please explain why a citizen of the
>> United States should be deprived such liberty. Is there
> any
>> harm in allowing customers to determine who should be
>> entitled to their tip?