Jump to content

Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?

Recommended Posts

Why should a person be discriminated against, just for having visible body art? I certainly think it should be illegal. The person most qualified for the position should get the job. Tattoos shouldn't even come into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a word, no. If an employer thinks their clientele will be put off by tattooed staff, then they should have every right to not employ tattooed staff. Ditto if an employer wants to employ tattooeed staff in order to attract customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a word, no. If an employer thinks their clientele will be put off by tattooed staff, then they should have every right to not employ tattooed staff. Ditto if an employer wants to employ tattooeed staff in order to attract customers.

 

Discriminating on appearance is a minefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of swanky bars, posh clothes shops etc seem to employ attractive women as staff. Maybe it's just coincedence? Or maybe they just think that it is better for business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of swanky bars, posh clothes shops etc seem to employ attractive women as staff. Maybe it's just coincedence? Or maybe they just think that it is better for business?

 

Have you not seen the fat bloke with the beard that works in Ann Summers at Meadowheaven ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a word, no. If an employer thinks their clientele will be put off by tattooed staff, then they should have every right to not employ tattooed staff. Ditto if an employer wants to employ tattooeed staff in order to attract customers.

 

Public opinion needs to change too. 1 in 5 people in the UK have a tattoo. They're more popular than ever at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only we can have some legeslation allowing people to wear what they want (h&s permitting of course) and green Mohicans . I have a bit of ink myself but realise if I had armfuls of the stuff it might not be every employers cup of tea. I suppose if you can prove its a religious/spiritual kind of thing you might be able to claim discrimination but pledging your love to a football team might be a hard sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Public opinion needs to change too. 1 in 5 people in the UK have a tattoo. They're more popular than ever at the moment.

 

There is a fella that works at Asda on Parson Cross and he looks like Keith Flint with loads of tattoos round his head, a bit intimidating at first glance but actually a very very lovely man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Public opinion needs to change too. 1 in 5 people in the UK have a tattoo. They're more popular than ever at the moment.

 

And in 5 years time it could be 1-10, certainly to the extent it is today. It's the same with beards. Fashions come and go and that's all it is, just harder to pass on to a charity shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discriminating on appearance is a minefield.

 

Its not really the same as discriminating against race or gender though is it? If someone is tattooed all up there arms, face e.c.t it purely a choice that they have made.

 

A lot of people would fine it abit intimidating and make them feel uncomfortable been served by people with tattoo's everywhere.

It depends on the job though I thing. surely if the work environment is a shop or where the main jobs is dealing with customers face to face, part of them been right for the job is looking presentable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in 5 years time it could be 1-10, certainly to the extent it is today. It's the same with beards. Fashions come and go and that's all it is, just harder to pass on to a charity shop.

 

Neither beards or tattoos are going anywhere. They might be popular now, but they'll never disappear.

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2014 at 00:06 ----------

 

Its not really the same as discriminating against race or gender though is it? If someone is tattooed all up there arms, face e.c.t it purely a choice that they have made.

 

A lot of people would fine it abit intimidating and make them feel uncomfortable been served by people with tattoo's everywhere.

It depends on the job though I thing. surely if the work environment is a shop or where the main jobs is dealing with customers face to face, part of them been right for the job is looking presentable.

 

That's precisely why it should be made illegal to discriminate. It shouldn't be intimidating. It should be normal to have someone with visible tattoos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because 20% of the population have a tattoo does not mean that they are a Good Thing and perfectly normal. Bonzo is falling into the trap of equating popularity with rightness. 20% of the population smokes, and a similar proportion regularly have unprotected sex, but it doesn't mean we should approve of or encourage those things.

 

In any case, it is not a given that they are attractive or even acceptable. Many people (for different reasons) find them ugly, threatening or even offensive. That in itself should not, as Bonzo says, necessarily prejudice people against their wearers, but I'd oppose Bonzo's suggestion if only on the grounds that to' normalise' them would encourage even more people (including immature people) to have them, only to spend the rest of their life regretting it. In a culture where appearances, including body appearances, do matter (rightly or wrongly), it is naive to assume the choices you make about your clothes, hair, skin or weight should not matter.

 

I'd have more sympathy for people left with with scars after accidents or surgery who are discriminated against - they didn't choose to have them, yet employers, etc., often assume (wrongly) that they got them in fights. Anti-discrimination legislation should be reserved for situations where people are being unfairly discriminated against for aspects of their appearance or identity which they did not choose to have, not ones they did.

 

The other problem is that one man (or woman's) 'art' is another's pornography, or propaganda. Where is the line to be drawn? At what point does 'body art' become offensive in the way that other visual art does? Flowers and anchors and geometric patterns are OK, but images of body parts, or sexual references are not?Would you want your child to be taught by a teacher with a Hitler moustache, Nazi swastika, any other religious or political slogan, or an image of breasts or genitals tattooed across their face? If you don't like such images, normally, there is no requirement to look at them. But if people in public life wear such indelible images on their skin, it is hard not to be exposed to them.

Edited by aliceBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.