Comments on: Tattoos Now a Civil Right?

By: Joe Bingham

Joe Bingham — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:15:04 +0000

Personally, I'd hire a guy with tatoos unless he's a regulation lobbyist, like this guy. They're the real freaks.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:28:18 +0000

Of course it’s the result of discrimination! EVERY TIME you hire one person over another, unless you flipped a coin, you discriminated between them somehow.

The question is whether there was anything WRONG with that… which of course, there isn’t.

By: lee

lee — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:56:58 +0000

You should learn how to spell “speach” before you “speek” about it.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:39:33 +0000

I agree with everything in this post, up until the suggestion that Mr. Parish must come to grips with “the bad lifestyle decisions he’s made.”

Gimme a break. If Mr. Parish wants to adorn himself with tattoos, why should Overlawyered deign to emulate Vogue magazine and comment on personal fashion?

The practical point is that Mr. Parish probably cannot establish a causal link between the tattoos he’s acquired and any hiring decisions by potential employers. So let it go at that and spare the poor fellow the BS about “bad lifestyle choices.”

By: nevins

nevins — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:00:06 +0000

Free speach is only guaranteed from infringement by the government. No such right exists (except by the special reading of the constitution by supreme court justices) to have your speach not count as a possible negative on a job interview. If he wins on this one, how can anyone not be hired for any job, because not to hire them on the basis of any content of their verbal, non-verbal, or written ‘speach’ would be improper.
This dude merely needs to find an occupation where his art is appreciated. Maybe the circus is hiring.

By: ptg

ptg — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:19:00 +0000

Bad choices result in bad consequences. The cat ruined his own life. Let it stay ruined as an example.