Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts) Mon Oct 7, 2013, 10:18 PM Oct 2013

This needs to be said: Not hiring someone because they have tattoos is anti-progressive. [View all]

Just as not hiring someone because they smoke pot is anti-progressive.

Whether or not you are hired to a position should be based on your accomplishments, capabilities and prospects. None of those things have anything to do with how one aesthetically modifies her or his body.

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This needs to be said: Not hiring someone because they have tattoos is anti-progressive. [View all] Gravitycollapse Oct 2013 OP

It would depend on the tattoo. alarimer Oct 2013 #1

Depends on the tat Kelvin Mace Oct 2013 #2

Some businesses in Austin REQUIRE tattoos. Eleanors38 Oct 2013 #3

I would agree that most tattoos are fine but... Bjorn Against Oct 2013 #4

Progressive schmogressive tularetom Oct 2013 #5

Well-said. My feelings exactly. Common Sense Party Oct 2013 #9

Depends on the job and depends on the tattoos groundloop Oct 2013 #6

Hardly. earthside Oct 2013 #7

A lot of body modification scares people off Warpy Oct 2013 #8

No, not hiring someone because they have tattoos is stupid. flvegan Oct 2013 #10

OK, but not hiring someone with tattoos is not classist. Tikki Oct 2013 #11

I'm sure this guy appreciates your endorsement of his "progressive" life choices. Decoy of Fenris Oct 2013 #12

Generally lame as well but there are probably some lines I'd understand. TheKentuckian Oct 2013 #13

Heck, in Portland, this might need to be reversed. HuckleB Oct 2013 #14

Depends on the job, and where the tats are. Lil Missy Oct 2013 #15

Were these the responses you expected? Llewlladdwr Oct 2013 #16

Judge much? Vashta Nerada Oct 2013 #17

It seems to me Abq_Sarah Oct 2013 #20

No, they're criticizing the *reasons* that person didn't want to hire someone. cui bono Oct 2013 #33

Who died and made you God? LisaL Oct 2013 #18

I'd hire this guy to sell drinks at a convenience store. TransitJohn Oct 2013 #19

Simplistic thinking is anti-progressive. nt greyl Oct 2013 #21

A little bit of over-generalization here, methinks. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2013 #22

It depends on the type of tat, Jamaal510 Oct 2013 #23

I would fire anyone who showed up to work impaired ripcord Oct 2013 #24

If I know the employee smokes pot, it's because it got in the way of the job. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #25

It depends gopiscrap Oct 2013 #26

When I was practicing law, ... Deep13 Oct 2013 #27

I agree. laundry_queen Oct 2013 #28

where are the folks who would not hire a person wearing makeup? uncle ray Oct 2013 #29

If someone's body mods are geared to say "I am a dirtbag," XemaSab Oct 2013 #30

My being tattooed suggests I'm a dirtbag? a la izquierda Oct 2013 #36

My point was that it depends on the context and content of the tats XemaSab Oct 2013 #38

Oh, I see your point. a la izquierda Oct 2013 #40

I was asleep and I woke up with indigestion and now I am on the internet XemaSab Oct 2013 #41

This is why I hate undefined labels LittleBlue Oct 2013 #31

Judgment is also a criteria Le Taz Hot Oct 2013 #32

It depends on your business......... 4bucksagallon Oct 2013 #34

Thanks. a la izquierda Oct 2013 #35

Sigh leftynyc Oct 2013 #37

I had a co worker with an Assault Rifle tattooed on each arm. Some B Calm Oct 2013 #39

My daughter is a nurse. No visible tattoos Freddie Oct 2013 #42

That depends Spider Jerusalem Oct 2013 #43

Police Officer? GeorgeGist Oct 2013 #44