Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Attached: no substitutions.webm (738x400, 2.88M)

The fucking retard that orders an omelet with tomatoes

Nobody is obligated to provide a service that they don't want to provide. If the business didn't offer substitutions, he should have either purchased the entire meal and then thrown away what he doesn't want, OR taken his business elsewhere. Having a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way is just childish.

If the wagie won't earn his salary by taking my order then he can earn his salary by cleaning up my mess.

this wouldn't happen
when you're a server you do whatever the fuck the customer wants
i once went in the back and scooped a ramekin of mayonnaise out of a big jar for a customer because they wanted it with their steak

how do you people know how to order at a diner without a menu
it's like black magic

You for posting this meme thread again

Most diners have the same basic meals available. Any diner in america you should be able to order a coffee and an omelet, for example. And obviously if you've been to a specific diner before you can just order something you have in the past.

Attached: jersfhsad.png (582x163, 30.91K)

He literally did order the entire meal, offered to pay for it, but asked the waitress to save herself the trouble of bringing the chicken to the table, making it easier for EVERYONE. But no. She was a small person who thought herself an authority figure so she flexed on him and got the how do you do.

The director or screenwriter for implying any diner in america circa this movie would work like this.

Be honest reply to this thread if you never watched the movie and only meme this thread. Because if people had actually watched this there'd be more Karen Black mommyposters

>It's up

>You want me to hold the chicken, huh?
>Yes
Now he gets his meal. Is that really so hard?

It WOULDN'T be easier for everyone to 'hold' everything, though.
It would waste time telling the chef what needs to be done. It would ruin the chef's flow as he needs to stop doing his usual routine and make this weird order. It would cause other customers to start saying "hey if HE could have a custom order, why won't you do MY custom order???? REEEE!" and then they would have autistic fits like the OP if refused.
Just bringing the entire meal and the guy himself just not eating the parts he doesn't want would have solved the issue. But no, it was never about him actually wanting toast. What he wanted was to be special. To be catered to. To be a snowflake. He needed to be validated by having the rules broken for him. That's all he actually cared about.

He said, "Now all you have to do is hold the chicken and you haven't broken any rules."
>"You want me to hold the chicken?"
UM, DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH YOU DUMB WHORE? WHAT DID I JUST FUCKING SAY? YES, HOLD THE CHICKEN. THAT'S WHAT 'HOLD THE CHICKEN' MEANS.

You for posting this thread daily and me for replying

They didn't have rules about holding the mayo, holding the tomato, holding the lettuce, holding the ketchup, so what the fuck are you talking about? Does doing one thing LESS in the preparation of a sandwich cause an undue hardship, or are you just being a retard?

>just break the spirit of the rules by using a convoluted linguistic trick to not technically break the specific wording of the rule
Good on the waiter for not being a greasy cunt that thinks this is acceptable. This is total kike logic.

Sperging out like that just means he doesn't get his meal. How is that better than just confirming he doesn't want the chicken?

Kikes would never pay more money for getting less. That's how I know this is bait. Only a white man would offer to pay extra for the braindead waitress to not have to risk her job by breaking the rules.

It was crystal clear he didn't want the chicken. What other possible interpretation of "Hold the chicken" could there possibly be?

shit scene from a shit movie in a shit thread by a shit op

The movie is pretty great, actually.

You're not responding to my question.

Sperging out like that just means he doesn't get his meal. How is that better than just confirming he doesn't want the chicken?