I think that tattoos are fantastic when they have a high artistic value. I see tattoos as a way of expressing yourself similar to music or other art mediums. Putting a law into effect that makes it so employers can’t hire people with visible tattoos feels like a form of discrimination. I agree with one of the people interviewed on his opinion that if the tattoos are pornographic or represent hate groups then that can definitely be reason not to hire someone. If the subject matter of the visible tattoos is not offensive, I see no reason that it should be legal to deny someone work because of their appearance.
Applying this same law to body piercings feels like it is more on the fair side. It’s unreasonable to ask someone to rip off their tattoos when at the workplace, but where piercings are usually easily removed I think that employers should be able to choose their own policy on body piercings.
Personally I don’t have any plans to get any tattoos or piercings, but I don’t think that it is fair to treat individuals that do any differently than people who don’t. Tattoos are a form of speech through symbols or images in my mind and this law seems like it would be denying an individuals freedom of speech.
If you feel that tattoos are a form of freedom of speech then do you also feel that people should be allowed to speak in whatever vulgar tone they choose. If you cuss and swear at you fellow employees or customers you will be fired and some tattoos are no different in their form of speech. What you do and say under your clothes or at home is up to you.
ReplyDeleteI do beleive tattoo's are a true art and they do express someones identity. I also agree some tattoo's are to vulgar but since we do live in a free country we ban one thing we can't say another is wrong due to our own personal opinion. Along with peircings, some people think it's okay to wear earings in their nose, lip ect. Who are we to say it's only appropriate to wear them in your ears?
ReplyDeleteWhy is it so different when it is a law or a policy? What is the difference? I have worked many places and almost every single one had a requirement that tattoos were to be covered during work. I knew many people with tattoos and they didn't mind covering their tattoos while at work because they knew it was only for a short time and that when they went home they could present themselves however they wanted. It is not an outrage for Bountiful City to want to present itself more professionally.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we judging people by their apperance? I do believe tattoos are an art but it all depends how we look at them. It is really not fair that rejecting people by tattoos. We can't deny that some tattoos are vulgar and not appropriate in public. But art is art, some people like it, and some others don't. Yeah, we should look the tattoos in a positive way. We can't forbid having tattoos just because some groups don't like them.
ReplyDeleteWe all are talking about how this tattoo issue is violating the free speech or freedom of individuals but we have to recognize the fact that America has become too casual in formal settings. The fact that Bountiful city is trying to embrace new ethic of professionalism doesn't mean it's an attack against self-expression or our freedoms. The only thing is that when we go to work, we should present ourselves professionally. If we have tattoos we should cover them. If we have piercing we should take them out during work hours. No one says you can't have tattoos or piercing. This is your private matter. But when you work for someone else, it is a public matter.
ReplyDeleteOur freedom of speech and expression can always be limited by our workplace, more commonly than we think. The reason for that is not to offend people, which could be extremely harmful to a business. A person who works in retail around christmas time, can be told by their employers to say "happy holidays" to customers instead of "merry christmas" for fear of offending and losing customers. Tattoos might offend people, and if those people are customers, than an employer might opt to hire people who's tattoos are not visible. We cannot change the way people get offended at certain things. And the real issue might be the fact that people are too easily offended and quick to judge, but it is unchangable. And until people's views can be changed, i find it perfectly reasonable for someone to hire based on the image they want to portray for their company in order to be more successful.
ReplyDelete