Is denial of employment because of a visible tattoo(s) violation of the 1st Amendment?

  • You can choose your own style

    Your style is a form of expression or "speech". Your tattoos do not restrict, encroach, or infringe upon other people's rights and freedoms. Therefor you should be allowed to show your tattoos, because even though someone else may not like them, it does not infringe upon their rights. What I'm saying is, if you don't want tattoos, don't get them, but don't try to take away another person's opportunities because of their personal sense of style.

  • Yes, as long as it (they) don't portray nudity/pornography or graphic violence, bigotry

    Tattoos fall under the 1st Amendment , but just like nudity/pornography, signs of bigotry (swastikas, KKK) and graphic violence, what types are publicly visible may fall into rescriction or regulation. Tattoos that do not violate "decency" regulations as outlined for public free speech should not be able to be used as grounds for denying employment

  • Tattoos Are OK

    Having a tattoo is similar to having a different skin color, as they differentiate certain people from others. Would you deny someone employment because of their skin color. I know I wouldn't. Besides, what matters is if the potential employee can do the job well, not what they look like.

  • They're the same as fake breasts, or any other kind of modification.

    Having a tattoo is a way to express yourself, to make yourself look better in your eyes, what is the difference between, getting plastic sugary or any other modification? There's not. They all help to improve yourself, to help you make you, you. So it defiantly is a violation to the 1st amendment, because i'm saying what i need to say through my body.

  • Employers should hire by merit, Not appearance.

    Tattoos are officially protected in the constitution. Several courts have ruled in favor of tattoos being a form of speech and of self expression. Employers should decide whether or not to hire someone based on their merit. They should not want to reject a qualified candidate simply for having tattoos.

  • Employers should hire by merit, Not appearance.

    Tattoos are officially protected in the constitution. Several courts have ruled in favor of tattoos being a form of speech and of self expression. Employers should decide whether or not to hire someone based on their merit. They should not want to reject a qualified candidate simply for having tattoos.

  • Yes, denial of employent because of a tattoo is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

    It is in my opinion that denial of employment due to a visible tattoo is a violation of the 1st Amendment. We are suppose to be able to have freedom of speech and freedom to express ourselves. This is why I do not think an employer has the right to deny someone a job based on something that is written on their skin.

  • Tattoo Work Ethic

    I don't think that someone that has a visible tattoo should be discriminated against. If my life is on the line and tho only doctors available have tattoos are they going to be denied being able to provide service. Will cops be unable to protect just because of a tattoo. People really should stop being so judgemental

  • Um, definitely not

    The person is still allowed to get tattoos aren't they? Therefor they still have that right. However, your rights, how you dress, speak, etc do not trump my rights as an employer to hire whomever I want and for whatever reason. That is MY right not yours. I'm sick n tired of people trying to force people to accept things they don't want to. If you're gay and I don't like gay people, then fine, I shouldn't be forced to hire you. That is your rights trumping mine. You have the right to be gay, have tats, but I shouldn't be forced to accept you. Get it?

    Like wise, a black business owner should be free to hire only blacks if they so choose. Its THEIR right as an employer.

  • Let employers choose who they want to employ

    Why should the government make an employer hire someone. How could someone have the right to say that the fact they weren't hired is a violation of his or her first amendment. In the case of tattoos, why would an employer want someone who looks like a crazy person, idiot, trash, or overall hoodlum working and representing his company.

  • Violation of the 1st Amendement?

    No. Race, age, gender and even sexual orientation are not choices. The individual chooses to alter their body with tattoos. Employers have the legal right to discriminate against visible tattoos if they choose. It's all about choice. I have 2 tattoos in areas that cannot be seen by the general public. They were my choice.

  • Tattoos should be hidden

    I think people these days have no tribal ties and when i see a tattoo covered person i think desecration of the body like a biker or a sadist or a savage. A lot of times unruly people have them like a comaro a criminals car. I have no tattoos so my opinion is very biased and most the tattoos i see are cover ups for drunken tattoos. Its your body and u can do what u want with it but if i dont like them as an employer i should be able to deny you

  • Understanding of Rights.

    The right to free speech, isn't the same as people agreeing with you; or wanting to deal with your opinions on a daily basis. What you say in that interview affects employment, so does how you dress, and likewise showing off your tattoos.

    Granted for a government job it may be another matter.

  • It is wrong morally, but not constitutionally.

    It is absurd to have something against tattooed people. Still, it is not much in the way of "speech" in the sense freedom of speech is referring to. One could choose to regulate it because it is not objectivly related to work performance, but then it's a labor union or worker protection issue not a freedom of speech issue.

  • Employers reserve the right to judge you

    1st Amendment in general doesn't apply to hiring employees. The entire interview process could be considered a violation of it. If they choose to not hire you because of the answers you give in your interview not meeting their expectations, is that a violation? Your outward appearance matters in some industries, especially if you are engaging clients or customers, so it is bad sense to hire someone who gives off an impression you might not wanted associated with your buisness

  • To tat or not to tat?

    A company has a standard and image they set for their company & it is their right to be able to express that "image" or idea to the public and if that means not to offend anyone by "optional" body art/alterations/piercing and such...Why should their rights be violated to give way to someone else who had a CHOICE to put something on their body in a particular spot to or not...A tattoo is not a disability- a disability is often not reversible and even a temporary disability isn't a conscience CHOICE!

  • No its not

    My business does not employ people with visible tattoos because our employees are role models for children and many parents don't want their children seeing role models like that.

    A business owner has a right to decide what they are looking for in the people they employ in their own businesses.

  • A Private Business should be able to deny employment to anyone for any reason.

    I will make this short, sweet, and to the point. A private business who pays taxes to the government and receives no funding should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason whatsoever. The government should have no say in what a private business owner decides is best for his company or store. The business owner has just as many 1st Amendment Rights as any private individual. The government would NEVER be allowed to tell someone who to allow into their home, so why is the government allowed to do this when it comes to the person's business. A bit of inconsistency there if you ask me.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.