vaglocker;64327 wrote:
I don’t have a problem with an employer who does not allow visible tattoos. In fact I believe that any non-gonvernment owned business should be able to discriminate with respect to hiring on any basis. I may choose not to work for them or patronize them, but it is still their right.
I agree, but unfortunately that is not the case. If I don’t want to hire someone who is black, I can’t refrain from hiring him just because he is black. If I don’t want to hire a Muslim, I can’t not hire someone because he is Muslim. If I don’t want to hire someone who is gay, a cross- dresser, young, old, blind, in a wheelchair, has AIDS, or from Canada, I can’t use any of those reasons to not hire them. Tattoos should be no exception. If you can do the job with tattoos, employers should not be allowed to discriminate.
Quote:
That being said it still sucks. Anyway, if you CHOOSE to get tattoos that are not easily covered hands/neck then you made your bed so you gotta lie in it. Time to pony up for some laser sessions or get a job where they don’t care.
The “choice” argument is also invalid. One’s religion is a choice. One’s choice of sexual partners is a choice. The gender that one represents to the public is a choice. In some cases, getting a disease (such as AIDS) or being disabled (such as a parachutist who has an accident and is paralysed for the rest of his life) is the result of a choice, as are tattoos. Yet all of those others are protected by law. You can’t have it both ways. Either don’t try to ban discrimination at all (which to me is the only logical thing to do), or ban all discimination (which is both impossible and idiotic). The only reason some groups are protected while others are not is because they have strong advocates. And it just goes to show how far politically-correct communism has dragged down our nation from the once great heights of Freedom.
