Personally, I do have two untraditional tattoos, in my theory. My eyeliner and lips are colored with permanent cosmetics. This is visible on my face and would be quite difficult to cover up if asked to do so; eyeliner more than lips. Most would not guess that I have this pigment placed in my skin and who would care. I find that to put such strong restrictions on personal expression or convenience, in my situation is unfair and confusing.
My comment doesn't follow completely parallel to the article. In summary, I understand the reason for wanting to have a standard of city employees. I do not agree with the singling out this ban might catalyze. Everyone should have the right to express themselves freely but a boundary should be allowed to be set by employers. As much as I don't like or want to logically agree with wearing panty hose as a teller there is a traditional standard employers want to maintain. Which is also the business's right. If a personal with tattoos doesn't want to cover up for a few hours a day, in conjunction with the employers code of dress, then maybe that person should find a job where it is acceptable. To have the final decision in the cities hands for all business may be over stepping boundaries. However, the city is the employer of city employees; therefore, stretching this thought, the city has the right.
Another thought, I would not want to be pulled over by "lizard man" or a police officer covered in tattoos. I would think a convict stole a police car. After speeding away I would call the police to report what I had imagined. This is an extreme example but in my mind makes a reasonable point.
