Woman Covered In Pokemon Tattoos Denied Position On Police Force

Well, I can’t say this should be allowed…

It’s sort of a discrimination issue. BUT, I’m aware that certain tattoos are unprofessional as well. However, if she lawyered up this could get solved.

Pretty simple. Tattoos are forever. Think long term. I wouldn’t say she was discriminated against as tattoos are optional and the department is trying to maintain a level of professionalism. I agree with the decision

3 Likes

It’s discrimination 100%. If she can do the job, Tattoos don’t matter. That’s like not hiring a man because he has earrings.

1 Like

Not if the department has a no earring policy. If a policy applies to everyone it’s not discrimination

2 Likes

Sure it is, you are basically saying if someone looks a certain way, you won’t hire them. That is discrimination.

I draw a line between a natural born difference, and a choice someone makes. If you choose to cover yourself in tattoos, piercings, unnatural hair colors, etc… You have made a decision it’s not up to companies or agencies to lower their professional standards because someone made poor decisions.

FYI. I have tattoos but always made sure they were above the cuffs and below the collar. So that I didn’t take myself out of the running for opportunities that may or may not have been in my future.

2 Likes

I have a ponytail and an earring. My father criticized me for years saying it was unprofessional. We/I never lost business because of it. No customer ever complained about my pony tail or earring.

Some of my professional clients have visible tattoos and they are high up in Government positions. They were hired because they can do the job. Some were elected because they can do the job.

It’s discrimination………but it’s not illegal discrimination (unless she’s part of some Pokémon religion that requires her to mark her body as such).

We all discriminate every day…….I discriminate when hiring an engineer because one individual has an Engineering degree from MIT and the other has an Engineering degree from ITT. I discriminate between someone who shows up to an interview for a sales rep job in a suit vs someone who shows up in ripped jeans and a t-shirt. I discriminate between a store that puts no restrictions on my ability to carry a weapon and one that does.

I discriminate between pepperoni pizza and pizza with anchovies. :slight_smile:

There are certain professions/businesses where appearance is a factor in how they do business and as such they discriminate accordingly. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong or illegal (as long as they’re doing so legally). It’s just how they do business. I actually have more of an issue with her nose ring than her tats (but I guess she could remove that).

3 Likes

I dont have any tattoos (never liked them), don’t have a pony tail (not enough hair), don’t have ear piercings (don’t like pain), Does it bother me that someone else does? Not at all. It’s their 1st Amendment right to free expression.

1 Like

I absolutely agree with that…but decisions (even protected ones) do have consequences.

1 Like

Hey, I like all you guys’ arguments!

Like I can see both sides…

(1) They have a policy against…

(2) It’s discrimination (Which, I was thinking)
But like @Sheepdog556 said she chose to get tattoos…

So, like all, you guys hold a valid point…

1 Like

Always comes back to the just because you can doesn’t always mean you should.

3 Likes

Just a hypothetical question. If a presidential candidate said, "Just because you can own an AR15, it doesn’t mean you should. " Would any of us vote for that person?

@Michael7 I might. Depends on the context of the comment. E.g. As person who cannot handle an AR15, just because you can does not mean you should. Or someone that’s not emotionally mature etc.

But you just sort of proved the point…that candidate said that…had the right to say it…but very well may suffer the consequences of saying it (lost votes from the 2A crowd if he was not able to contextualize he comment well enough for them) :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Agreed.

Not everyone that can own a firearm should own a firearm. However I don’t believe it’s the government’s place to make that decision

2 Likes

As long as she covers the Tats while at work who are we to say anything about her personal choice.

I was in my 60s when I got my first ink. Mainly because what I wanted was going to be expensive, I did not want to do a partial and have to wait years (or maybe never) to finish it. As it was it took over a year to get it all done.

When I know I have to meet with people at work from outside the company I will wear a long sleeve shirt. Not because I have to but because I feel it is professional.

I love my full sleeve (shoulder and part of my back) tattoo. When I am not in a professional capacity if you dont like it dont look. It isn’t for you it is for me.

1 Like

Tats have gotten much more mainstream these days. But, as said above, they are permanent, and how you feel at one point in your life may not be how you want to be perceived later in life. You may not be able to get certain jobs with tats that show with a shirt on.

Just like I might not get a job if I wear worn jeans and a lose fitting shirt over my T-Shirt to an interview, it is a choice, not illegal discrimination.

Yeeeup….exactly right.

Just a hypothetical question. If a presidential candidate said, "Just because you can own an AR15, it doesn’t mean you should. " Would any of us vote for that person?

Big difference between a politician that wants to restrict a Constitutional right vs an employer having a dress code. We all have the 1A at work, but how is that going to work out if you tell an important customer how you really feel… Same way a company can restrict your 2A while on their property.

1 Like