While this article brings up some disturbing points that I was completely oblivious to, discussions like "<something> should be illegal" make me cringe.
There will always be some behavior deemed socially undesirable. The real question that should be asked is where is the line between good social protection and an undue infringement upon personal freedom? At the extremes, it's very very clear, but as you get towards the middle, everything blurs and it's in the eye of the beholder.
I can never, and would never attempt to, justify providing inferior service to people based on their origin or appearance (or other identifiable factor), prohibition is a blunt instrument. Education and socialization with diverse communities is another option, although slower and much more difficult.
If not illegal, then why not policy? There's ways of carrot-and-sticking this to the correct course without having to make it outright illegal.
Where I live they tried to cut down on the number of plastic bags used by instituting a $0.05 fee for each one. It's not a tax, it's just a recommendation by the city to retailers that they charge that much for bags, nobody had to do it, but a lot did and for the most part it worked.
If your city went "tip-free", by the same token, with clear advertising and an explanation of the implications made through the media, that would be as good as making it illegal: It'd make it old-fashioned.
I agree, some incentive/penalty would be better than blanket prohibition. Santa Monica I believe actually requires a $0.10 charge per bag. But that is very different from saying "you must bring a re-usable bag."
For tipping, flat-rate minimum tip (like for larger parties, and also described in one of the articles), for instance could level the field. If I want to tip more, I can just leave the cash on the table...
>> "For tipping, flat-rate minimum tip (like for larger parties, and also described in one of the articles), for instance could level the field."
My belief is that that will mean you rarely get tips higher than the minimum. Tips are supposed to be--by definition--voluntary, and in some sense a reward for service. As such, it offends me when a minimum tip is added (note: pre-adding it is different that merely showing off to the side what certain percentages of the bill are as a helpful arithmetic guide.) In keeping with that feeling, I never tip higher than the minimum if it's pre-added, even though in almost all cases the tip I would have given would have been (sometimes significantly) higher.
Perhaps the better question is whether or not it's legitimate for government to attempt to change social mores like that. As a corollary does a "behavior modification" style policy actually change how people feel? Or just how they act? And if it only changes how they act, have we really accomplished the desired end?
There will always be some behavior deemed socially undesirable. The real question that should be asked is where is the line between good social protection and an undue infringement upon personal freedom? At the extremes, it's very very clear, but as you get towards the middle, everything blurs and it's in the eye of the beholder.
I can never, and would never attempt to, justify providing inferior service to people based on their origin or appearance (or other identifiable factor), prohibition is a blunt instrument. Education and socialization with diverse communities is another option, although slower and much more difficult.