# Anti-tattoo discrimination; should this be a thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 18, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821 "2014-08-18T12:56:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sparky\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/21 "2014-08-18T16:30:29Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > As reported by the [beeb](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900) there are some who call for anti-tattoo discrimination in employer-employee relations to be illegal. Let’s take an example from the article. There’s a [lady working as a consultant](http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/4cm-tattoo-of-a-butterfly-causes-workplace-flutter-1-6160512), has all the skills etc. She’s terminated on the basis that she has 4cm butterfly inked on her ankle. > > Do you think this is bullshit or is fair enough? Should it be illegal to fire someone for getting a tattoo - or not hire them on that basis - is they are otherwise fine for the job (assuming they haven’t got “FUCK YOU” in block capitals across their forehead, might be awkward in kindergarten). That ain’t 4cm. I’d say more like 10cm, at least (counting the line-work)! ---
**Author:** ![PorchePine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@PorchePine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PorchePine)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/22 "2014-08-18T16:49:15Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#): > > That ain’t 4cm. I’d say more like 10cm, at least (counting the line-work)! And easily covered with woman’s boots or concealed with dark panty hose. I’m sure she’s trying to thumb her nose at management for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/23 "2014-08-18T17:05:07Z")
Is it stupid for your boss to fire you because you got an ankle tattoo? Yes it is. Should it be illegal? No. Why would it be? Your boss can fire you for just about any reason, or for no reason. There are only a few reasons that are illegal–race, religion, sex, age, and maybe a few others–accommodated disability status? Your clothes, hairstyle and your personal decorations are not protected classes. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/24 "2014-08-18T17:13:13Z")
I don’t know if these affect the poll at all, but it’s not clear how long she’s had the tattoo, or how long she’s been on the contract. If she’s had the tattoo for years and she wore a “smart dress” to the interview, it’s reasonable to assume the tattoo was showing and she was hired in spite of that fact. On the other hand, if she got the job before the tattoo and the day she got fired was the first time they saw it, that’s a different story. If she presented herself at the interview as someone who can do the job (who, by the way, also has a tattoo) and she got the job, that would say to me that the tattoo didn’t matter and the decision to fire her was out of synch with their decision to hire her, just as if they had a policy against beards and I got the job, even though I have a beard. It’s still probably legal for them to fire her, because they have it down on paper, but it’s kinda lame. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/25 "2014-08-18T17:30:07Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I’m an employer and I have dozens of hours of artwork on me. Over the years I’ve shown preference (unintentional) in hiring of modded people. Everyone who currently works for/with me is tattooed, and they are all great workers. Serious but no offense intended question: Why don’t you have any unmodded employees? Are you consciously rejecting people without tattoos? As to the OP situation, I don’t think the employer just took one look at the tat that wasn’t there yesterday, went apoplectic and up and fired her. These things don’t happen in a vacuum. Something was going on and the tat was the excuse, or the final straw. ---
**Author:** ![Hey\_Hey\_Paula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hey\_Hey\_Paula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hey_Hey_Paula)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/26 "2014-08-18T17:30:49Z")
That’s not an ankle tattoo, that’s a foot tattoo, and it’s a lot bigger than 4cm. A businesswoman who wears smart dresses to work shouldn’t have gotten such a stupid tattoo. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/27 "2014-08-18T17:34:42Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Serious but no offense intended question: Why don’t you have any unmodded employees? Are you consciously rejecting people without tattoos? It was unintentional. I have something in common with people that are into body modification, hence more chitchat during the interview. ---
**Author:** ![Rhiannon8404](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhiannon8404/32/17929_2.png) [@Rhiannon8404](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhiannon8404)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/28 "2014-08-18T17:52:08Z")
She might wear “smart dresses” to work, but she sounds like an idiot. Is she forbidden from wearing “smart pantsuits”? That would have solved her problem if she wanted a tattoo on her foot. If your contract says no visible tattoo and you get a visible tattoo, don’t be surprised when you get fired for breaking your contract. I don’t think there should be a law forcing employers to allow visible tattoos. I do think it should be very clear what the policy is at the time of hire, which it seemed it was in the aforementioned case. I also think it will be hard for employers in the future who allow tattoos because then it comes down to discriminating based on what the tattoo is. Butterfly? no problem. Skull? hmm…depends on the skull. Snarling zombie face with blood dripping? probably not depending on the type of business. Easier to just say no visible tattoos. I have a tattoo on my foot that goes up past my ankle. I am full resigned to wearing pants or boots that cover my tattoo should I enter back into a workforce that required no visible tattoos. ---
**Author:** ![PorchePine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@PorchePine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PorchePine)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/29 "2014-08-18T17:58:41Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Serious but no offense intended question: Why don’t you have any unmodded employees? Are you consciously rejecting people without tattoos? > > As to the OP situation, I don’t think the employer just took one look at the tat that wasn’t there yesterday, went apoplectic and up and fired her. These things don’t happen in a vacuum. Something was going on and the tat was the excuse, or the final straw. Or the higher-ups received complaints from clients about the tattoo. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/30 "2014-08-18T18:23:45Z")
But can I open a cafe that gives a 5% discount to those that have a visible tattoo ? \< VEG \> ---
**Author:** ![PorchePine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@PorchePine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PorchePine)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/31 "2014-08-18T18:26:06Z")
> [@GusNSpot](#): > > But can I open a cafe that gives a 5% discount to those that have a visible tattoo ? \< VEG \> I don’t see why not. You could probably also have a tattoo surcharge, as the state of being tattooed (or not tattooed) isn’t a protected class. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Toothpaste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e56c9b/32.png) [@James\_Toothpaste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James_Toothpaste)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/32 "2014-08-18T19:07:30Z")
I don’t like the idea of anti tattoo discrimination at all. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/33 "2014-08-18T19:14:23Z")
I’m not sure legal protections are appropriate here, to be honest. For practical purposes everybody with a tattoo has chosen to get one, and protected classes normally apply to immutable person characteristics. But it’s very stupid, and even though the SDMB sometimes seems weirdly behind the times on this issue (maybe it’s just an issue of who chooses to post about it), I think tattoos have probably been mainstream long enough that a lot of people have stopped caring - and that includes employers. As younger and more-tattooed people continue to enter the work force, this prejudice is only going to erode further, and since people have gradually figured out that tattoos don’t mean you’re a criminal or a gang member, it’s hard to think of a good reason for anyone to give a shit unless you have something like a Nazi symbol on your face. In the meantime, another company advertised that it’s run by idiots. It happens from time to time. > [@Lasciel](#): > > If you are hired and agree to terms and conditions of your employment, then you have to abide by those terms and conditions, even if that means you can’t get your favorite butterfly tattoo. > > If they didn’t say specifically that tats weren’t allowed, then that’s weasely and sucks, and I think that firing people for superficial things is stupid. But then, I have tatttoos, so I’m biased. According to the article linked in the OP, the company seems to have come up with the policy after she started working there. It also sounds like she was a temporary consultant. > [@PorchePine](#): > > Or the higher-ups received complaints from clients about the tattoo. The article also says she didn’t deal with the public. It sounds like she worked for an exceptionally stuffy company: > [@](#): > > Salisbury FM, the multi-million pound [Central Milton Keynes] company whose sole client is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. You can imagine a company that only works with the Crown might be far more conservative than average even if nobody asked them to be that way. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/34 "2014-08-18T19:34:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then she had three options: > [ol][li]Not get a tattoo[/li][li]Get a tattoo and look stupid[/li][li]Get a tattoo, and look stupid whining about gettting fired.[/ol]She chose what was behind Door Number Three. _Sic transit gloria mundi._[/li] > Regards, > Shodan > [@PorchePine](#): > > And easily covered with woman’s boots or concealed with dark panty hose. I’m sure she’s trying to thumb her nose at management for some reason. I was going to say she could put a bandaid over it (as is done in some fast food places), but that was going by her description. That’s too big a tat for even the biggest bandaid. Fun fact - some fast food places require employees to use bright blue bandaids, when they need to use a bandaid. That way if they fall off, they are less likely to go unnoticed if they fall into the food. So employees there could, conceivably, be fired for refusing to use the right color bandaid. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/35 "2014-08-18T20:19:24Z")
I think it is a bad idea to make personal adornment choices a “protected class”. I also think it is a dumb idea to fire someone for having a relatively modest tat; but legal protection against this sort of stupidity would cause more problems than it would solve. ---
**Author:** ![Staggerlee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/staggerlee/32/3134_2.png) [@Staggerlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staggerlee)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/36 "2014-08-18T21:33:04Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I’m an employer and I have dozens of hours of artwork on me. Over the years I’ve shown preference (unintentional) in hiring of modded people. Everyone who currently works for/with me is tattooed, and they are all great workers. Well I certainly agree that Circus-folk shouldn’t face discrimination over body-art. ---
**Author:** ![the\_apples\_fell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@the\_apples\_fell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_apples_fell)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/37 "2014-08-20T02:07:05Z")
No. Anti-discrimination should be based on immutable characteristics; race, sexuality, etc. Things that are not a result of choice. Tattoos are a choice, and thus one should realize all that comes with making that choice. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2014, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/38 "2014-08-20T02:32:58Z")
Personally, I don’t care about tattoos but if employers do that’s their lookout. The example in the OP is awful because that woman didn’t even have to put on socks, just shoes with a bit more coverage. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2014, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/39 "2014-08-20T11:22:30Z")
I don’t know that it should be illegal, but I agree that it’s dumb and bad business. A bunch of grown adults getting vapors because of a picture of a butterfly…that’s what’s dumb here. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2014, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/40 "2014-08-20T11:42:29Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I know grandmothers who have ankle tats. That level of ink should be a non-issue by now. The number of little old ladies with tramp stamps should begin to skyrocket in a few years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821.md?page=3)