The Instigator
1dustpelt
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
julianna.rose
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on visible bodily tattoos

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1dustpelt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,266 times Debate No: 36162
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

1dustpelt

Pro

Resolved: Employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on visible bodily tattoos

This debate is based on the Opinion http://www.debate.org... in which my opponent and I had a series of arguments.

Rules and Consequence if Broken
No semantics- Any debater who violates this rule will automatically lose
No trolling- Any debater who violates this rule will automatically lose
No plagarism- Engaging in plagarism will result in loss of sources and conduct point
No harsh language or cursing- Engaging in harsh language or cursing will result in loss of conduct point
Nothing that relates to flaming, trolling, or changing the debate from its original intent- Any debater violating this rule will automatically lose

First round is for acceptance only.
julianna.rose

Con

To start off thank you for this opportunity,
Employers should not be allowed to deny employment because of visible tattoos. Deny a person a job because of tattoos is wrong for multiple reasons, 1) you would be denying someone the right to be themselves and display that. and 2) Its discriminating against that person

Reason 1- As you should know, body modification is a huge part of our society today. Everyday people are modifying their bodies,people are ether getting tattoos, having plastic sugary done, piercings or anything like that. For you to go into a job and be denied that job that your are perfectly qualified for because you have tattoos is wrong. Now, i can completely understand why an employer would deny that person if the have offensive, or inappropriate tattoos, that were visible. But if someone have full sleeve tattoos, in which non are inappropriate, and they are better for the job then any other person in that room. Why would you deny them that job?

2) It is defiantly discriminating against the person with the tattoos. Because they are being judged on what they look like rather then what they can do.
Debate Round No. 1
1dustpelt

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting. In the format, I listed that Round 1 was supposed to be acceptance only, not to make opening arguments. Because of this, I will ignore my opponent’s opening arguments for now and address them later.

Disclaimer

My unpopular stance has brought some to call me a racist,bigot, etc. I would like to say that I, myself, am against discrimination in business. However, I believe business owners should have property rights to decide who they hire. One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit any other kind of discrimination by private parties.
Without further ado, I will begin my case.
Definitions
Private- Personal: belonging to, restricted to, or intended for an individual person. (1)
Property- Something owned: something of value that is owned, e.g. land or a patent (2)
Right- An entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. (3)

Property Rights
The most important factor to consider is the right as an employer and private business owner to hire who they want. A person has the right to wear tattoos. However, a person’s rights; how they dress, speak, etc. do not trump an employer's rights as a private property owner. If a person is gay and the employer doesn't like gay people, then fine, the employer shouldn't be forced to hire the person. That is the person's rights trumping the employer's rights. You have the right to be gay, have tattoos, but I should not be forced to accept you.
But then, my rights as a property owner would be trumping your rights, right?
No. The person still has the rights to dress however they like, speak, be gay, have tattoos, etc., just not on the employer’s property. The employer did not violate their rights, as they still have those rights. The employer did not take those rights away. They simply denied those rights on their property. As a property owner, I have to right to decide what happens on my property and who enters it. If I own a property, I am not forcing you onto my property and should be able to decide what to do with it. A business is a private property and thus the government has no right to tell the owner what to do with it.
The employer may be a bigot, but he has a right to be a bigot on his own property. To force him to not be a bigot is violating his
rights and freedom of association.

Conclusion
The property rights of the business owner give him the right to deny employment based on a visible bodily tattoo. I thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to refuting her case. Please do not forfeit.

Sources
1. http://www.bing.com...
2. http://www.bing.com...
3. http://dictionary.law.com...
julianna.rose

Con

I apologize for making an opening argument, i misread the previous message.

Discrimination is defined as-
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:

You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive. If it is not offensive in any way then they are discriminating. I refer to this article-
http://www.careerealism.com...
As of right now there are no laws to protect against this kind of discrimination, but there is a law to protect you from stereotyping(http://www.eeoc.gov... ). When the employer deny's that person a job because of their tattoo, what could be their reasoning? If it's not offensive what other reasoning can there be? It's not professional? What is professionalism exactly?
Professionalism- the competence or skill expected of a professional:
This does not state that you have to look a certain way in order to be professional. If you have full sleeve tattoos, yet you can dress appropriately and do the job correctly what is the problem?
A person can have their property rights all they want but everyone still has their own rights, just because you are an employer does not mean your rights trump mine, only your authority does.

Thank you for this opportunity to debate this topic with you, i look forward to hearing your next argument.

Sources-
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
1dustpelt

Pro


I thank my opponent for posting. I apologize for my rushed response, I barely have any time left.

Rebuttals
“Deny a person a job because of tattoos is wrong for multiple reasons, 1) you would be denying someone the right to be themselves and display that. 2) Its discriminating against that person.”
A person’s rights; how they dress, speak, etc. do not trump an employer's rights as a private property owner. By forcing an employer to hire someone, the employer’s rights are being trumped. The person has the right to have tattoos, but the employer should not be forced to accept the person.

“Reason 1- As you should know, body modification is a huge part of our society today. Everyday people are modifying their bodies, people are ether getting tattoos, having plastic sugary done, piercings or anything like that.”
I agree.

“For you to go into a job and be denied that job that your are perfectly qualified for because you have tattoos is wrong.”
This may be true. However, by forcing an employer to hire someone, the employer’s rights are being trumped. A person’s rights to speak, dress, have tattoos do not trump the employer’s rights.

“Now, i can completely understand why an employer would deny that person if the have offensive, or inappropriate tattoos, that were visible.”
In this case, should it be legal? It looks like my opponent is conceding part of the OP. I would also like to make the point that there is no objective standard of “offensive” or “inappropriate” tattoos, and thus, you cannot make it illegal for the employer to only deny certain types of tattoos. My opponent also mentions that she can understand if the tattoo is “visible”. However, if it were not visible, how would the employer know about the tattoo in the first place?

“But if someone have full sleeve tattoos, in which non are inappropriate, and they are better for the job then any other person in that room. Why would you deny them that job?”
The employer may have his own reasons. I do not know.

“It is defiantly discriminating against the person with the tattoos. Because they are being judged on what they look like rather then what they can do.”
Some employers may have their reasons in denying people with tattoos. There is a major difference between denying because of tattoos and denying because of race, gender, etc. You cannot choose your race or your gender, but you CAN choose to have tattoos. Again, by forcing an employer to hire someone, the employer’s rights are being trumped. The person has the right to have tattoos, but the employer should not be forced to accept the person.

“You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive.”
My opponent has conceded that employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on SOME tattoos.

“If it is not offensive in any way then they are discriminating.”
What is the difference? The term “offensive” is defined as, “upsetting, insulting, or irritating:causing anger, resentment, or moral outrage.” (1) It is easy to see how different employers may have different standards of what is deemed offensive. There is no way to objectively define “offensive”.

There is no way to legally restrict employers to only be able to deny offensive tattoos. Employers can easily fish for and find any reason that a tattoo may “offend” someone.

“When the employer denies that person a job because of their tattoo, what could be their reasoning?”

Their reasoning does not matter in this debate. The employers should be able to deny that tattooed person a job for whatever reason.

“This does not state that you have to look a certain way in order to be professional. If you have full sleeve tattoos, yet you can dress
appropriately and do the job correctly what is the problem?”

Professionalism itself is subjective. There may be no problem, but it’s the employer’s choice. The government can’t tell employerswhat to deem “professional”, or “offensive”, and it is certainly not the government’s job to decide for employers if a person is suited for the job or not.

“A person can have their property rights all they want but everyone still has their own rights, just because you are an employer does not mean your rights trump mine, only your authority does.”

The point is; the employer is not violating your rights. You can still get or wear tattoos. The employer did not take those rights away. They simply denied those rights on their property. As a property owner, the employer has the right to choose what happens on and who enters his property.

Summary of Argument

-The rights of the applicant does not trump the rights of the employer.
-By forcing the employer to accept someone, the rights of the applicant is trumping the rights of the employer.
-The employer should have the property rights to decide who he hires for whatever reason.
-It is impossible to effectively make it legal to only deny people who have “offensive” tattoos, as my opponent suggests. “Offensive” is subjective and employers can easily find reasons to make any tattoo offensive.
-By denying someone because of tattoos, that person’s rights are not violated. The person can still get or wear tattoos. The employer did not take those rights away. They simply denied those rights on their property. As a property owner, the employer has the right to choose what happens on and who enters his property.

Sources

1. http://www.bing.com...
julianna.rose

Con

You keep saying that a persons right do not trump an employers rights, when they both have the same rights. They just have more authority over them. I'm saying that the employer should be forced to accept them, i'm saying that to deny them a job because of how they look is wrong.

Again the employer and the employee have the same rights, they are no different, the only thing that is different is the power.

Now you took what i said and completely jumbled it up, i did not say that, " My opponent also mentions that she can understand if the tattoo is 'visible'. However, if it were not visible, how would the employer know about the tattoo in the first place?" This was what i said, "You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive." I said i could understand if it were offensive. not just visible.

You right, you can not choose your race or gender, but getting a tattoo, is making it apart of you, it is who you are, you are denying someone because of who they are. Your not forcing anyone to hire them, you always have the option to hire someone or not too, but not based off what they look like.

Let me clarify what i mean a little more when i say, "You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive." What i am saying is that, if you go to a job where you have to deal with customers face to face everyday, for example being a waiter or waitress. And that person had tattoos that had swears in them, or something like that. That could be offensive to certain people they are waiting on, so no they wouldn't be right for that particular job. But, if they applied to the same place to work in the back of the house, then why should they be denied?

The employer is violating your rights by judging how you look, it shouldn't matter what they look like if they can get the job done. property owner or not, your infringing on my rights.
Debate Round No. 3
1dustpelt

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and I wish her luck in the final round.

Rebuttals

“You keep saying that a persons right do not trump an employers rights, when they both have the same rights. They just have more authority over them.”

Yes, they both have the same rights. Neither’s rights trumps the other's.

“I'm saying that the employer should be forced to accept them, i'm saying that to deny them a job because of how they look is wrong.”

I’m assuming my opponent means that, “I’m NOT saying that the employer should be forced to accept them, but saying that to deny them a job because of how they look is wrong,” because her sentence did not make sense.

Forcing the employer to hire someone they don’t want to is forcing them to accept them. It may be wrong, but the employer has property rights.

“Again the employer and the employee have the same rights, they are no different, the only thing that is different is the power.”

I agree the have the same rights. Both of them have property rights as well. Since the applicant wants to get on the employer’s property, the employer has a right to deny for whatever reason.

“Now you took what i said and completely jumbled it up, i did not say that, " My opponent also mentions that she can understand if the tattoo is 'visible'. However, if it were not visible, how would the employer know about the tattoo in the first place?" This was
what i said, "You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive." I said i could understand if it were offensive. not just visible.”

Thank you for clearing that up. My problem is that the word, “Offensive” is subjective by definition. (1) Different employers may find different things offensive. That said, it is not really the point. The point is, the employer owns the property and thus should be able to deny whoever he wants for whatever reason. The government should not be able to tell the employer why not to accept someone.

“You right, you cannot choose your race or gender, but getting a tattoo, is making it apart of you, it is who you are, you are denying someone because of who they are.”

Organization skills, speaking skills, etc. and other skills the employer looks for is also part of “who you are”. That said, it is not really the point. The point is, the employer owns the property and thus should be able to deny whoever he wants for whatever reason. The government should not be able to tell the employer why not to accept someone.

Your not forcing anyone to hire them, you always have the option to hire someone or not too, but not based off what they look like.”

But WHY NOT what they look like? If the employer is forced to accept the way someone looks, then that person’s rights are trumping the employer’s.

What i am saying is that, if you go to a job where you have to deal with customers face to face everyday, for example being a waiter or waitress. And that person had tattoos that had swears in them, or something like that. That could be offensive to certain people they are waiting on, so no they wouldn't be right for that particular job. But, if they applied to the same place to work in the back of the house, then why should they be denied?”

I have addressed this many times. I don’t know and I don’t care why they should be denied. That is the employer’s choice, not mine.
Neither is it the government’s choice. The employer should be able to deny whoever he wants for whatever reason. If the employer is forced to accept the way someone looks, then that person’s rights are trumping the employer’s.

The employer is violating your rights by judging how you look, it shouldn't matter what they look like if they can get the job done. property owner or not, your infringing on my rights.”

The employer has the right to judge you. That’s what his job is; to judge people. Judging looks are no different.

“it shouldn't matter what they look like if they can get the job done.”

It’s not the government’s job to determine if people can get the job done or not! That’s the employer’s choice!

My Opponent’s Argument

P1: The employer does not have a valid reason to deny the person a job.

P2: It is wrong to judge someone based on looks.

C: It should be illegal to deny someone a job based on tattoos.

Refuting P1: The employer may or may not have a valid reason. His reasoning does not matter because it’s not the government’s place to regulate what reasoning an employer has for hiring someone. To make it illegal for an employer to deny someone based on bad reasoning is ridiculous.

Refuting P2: It may be wrong to do that, but the employer has property rights. It is also wrong for the employer to be forced to accept someone they don’t want to accept.

C: It should not be illegal.

What My Opponent Has Not Addressed

  1. Employers have property rights.
  2. By denying someone because of tattoos, that person’s rights are not violated. The person can still get or wear tattoos. The
    employer did not take those rights away. They simply denied those rights on their property. As a property owner, the employer has the right to choose what happens on and who enters his property.
  3. It is impossible to effectively make it legal to only deny people who have “offensive” tattoos, as my opponent suggests.
    “Offensive” is subjective and employers can easily find reasons to make any tattoo offensive.
  4. The employer and the applicant have equal rights. The rights of the applicant does not trump the rights of the employer. By forcing the employer to accept someone, the rights of the applicant is trumping the rights of the employer.

Voting Analysis

Arguments: My opponent has not even attempted to refute my property rights argument.

Spelling and Grammar: I think this one is obvious.

Conduct: My opponent posted opening arguments in the acceptance only Round 1.

Conclusion

My opponent has not refuted most of my arguments. It should be legal for employers to deny employment based on a visible bodily tattoo.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and vote Pro!

Sources
1. http://www.bing.com...

julianna.rose

Con

julianna.rose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Honestly, 90% of tattoos are eyesores. I cannot tell you how many tattoos I have seen that look like crap. Looking like crap will not get you hired. The term "looking the part" is applicable here. Now I'm not a tattoo hater, just as long as they're not ugly/excessively huge/random. If you're maybe ex military/LE and you get a small tattoo on your forearm with your unit info/insignia or deployment, I'm ok with that. But if you've got 50 colour flower infused rainbows on the back of a sparkly unicorn riding on the ocean, or something random like that, then I start to have issues.
Posted by julianna.rose 4 years ago
julianna.rose
I apologize for not posting my response for the last round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
1dustpeltjulianna.roseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed slightly aggravated, as well as the forfeited round, conduct to pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
1dustpeltjulianna.roseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: partial concession, countefed by missed round. ARGUMENT: both did a good job, butever the sticking point for me was that if a tattoo is offensive they may reject the applicant (as con said); yet offensive is subjective. If they don't find the tattoo in some way offensive, there is likely no issue...