I understood your point completely and I disagree completely. The point of the democracy is not to enforce majority's views on the minority, at least if we're talking about modern democracy. The point of the democracy is to protect people's rights. Since you have no right to tell the restaurant how to pay their servers, or to restaurant patrons if they should leave tips of not, no democracy can or should give you this right, and it shouldn't matter how many people agree with you - otherwise slavery would be OK as long as slave owners are the majority. On the contrary, one has the right not to be enslaved (or, made to work for other man involuntarily and without mutually agreed compensation) - which makes slavery not OK. It is rather ironic that you invoke slavery - i.e. work forced, ultimately, by government coercion - in support of applying government coercion to mutually agreed trades between people.
>>> No business would have to go out of business and no costs would need to change.
Of course they would need to change - changing the structure of charges would require changing all the prices, and as any price rise, perceived or real, would cost business.
>>> You yourself gave a great examples of how McDonalds manages to run their restaurants without tipping.
I don't go to McDonalds, but I go to other restaurants. So converting all restaurants to McDonalds would cost them my business, that's kinda the point. That'd the difference between our positions - I advocate that both models can work for different people and different situations, and people should be allowed to choose which one they prefer. You advocate that only one model is right for everybody and all others should be banned by the threat of government coercion, and nobody should be allowed to choose what you dislike.
>>> I like it the way it is and no one should tell me to change
It's called freedom. There was time it had some value in America. Now one has to explain what's so valuable about it.