To have a tattoo is a choice, everyone knows that. As Americans we have that right. For a city to make a law of that kind is discriminating; any law that restricts according to how you look is such. Some may consider tattoos to be different because one who has a tattoo chose to put it there; a tattoo also has a message with it no matter what the tattoo is. Any potential employer can look at that tattoo and see the message it puts across. I think that the message is far more important than weather or not they have a tattoo. Many of the tattoos that I have seen do not put the best messages across; often it really is not that pleasant to look at. So in that case I would say that there shouldn't be a blanket law or policy stating: If you have a visible tattoo we won't employ you. Rather a policy that if your visible tattoo gives a message that the employer feels is offensive, or will discourage costumers from coming to the store, that can be grounds not to hire, or even grounds to fire a person. I am the kind of person who does not like the concept of tattooing so in my opinion any tattoo is not a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, the message is what should be looked at, not the fact that they have a tattoo. I think that the policy in Bountiful should be changed to whether or not the content of the tattoo is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I do not know how many people actually realize that most of the tattoo's people wear actually have a meaning behind them. Very few times have I known someone to get a tattoo just to get a tattoo. I also agree that the message should be looked at, and not the tattoo it self.
ReplyDeleteI would say this is a really good point, but I think no one who has a tattoo thinks his or her tattoo gives a message that the employer feels is offensive, or will discourage costumers from coming to the store. It depends on how others take this tattoo in certain ways.
ReplyDelete