Quote (dro94 @ 27 Sep 2015 12:08)
It's not an either / or issue. It is a given that you are hiring someone with merit. What if there are 2 candidates with the right credentials but one has a sprawling tattoo on their face.
Any tattoo on a person's face, neck or hands are damn near impossible to cover up and a job may require them to talk to clients or attend business meetings. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to favour the candidate without those tattoos. It's unprofessional, may impact negatively upon the business' image and was entirely a result of their personal choice to appear that way.
Speaking from experience when hiring people that come with virtually equal resume's the process does come down to the personal interview, that's when you can get to know a taste of the candidate's personality it's usually pretty easy to pick the "right fit" for the spot.
You guys all think that someone with a tattoo on their head would be bad for business or sales. but I'd take one outside or inside sales person covered in tattoos that was friendly and outgoing and earnest in what they were doing, and who they were selling to. over a fleet of plain Jane well groomed non-adorned sales people who were just earning their commission.
Quote (cambovenzi @ 27 Sep 2015 17:23)
What do you think it means when you want government to ban allowing employers to discriminate based on looks?
What do you think happens if they refuse to comply with your tyrannical commands?
You'll hold their hand and tell them why its somehow wrong to make smart business decisions and exercise their freedom of association? ofc not. There will be serious punitive penalties, and prison/death for resistors.
You being too cowardly to face up to the truth of what you support doesn't make what I said 'bullshit'
Once again Cam no business owner in the US has been executed for not hiring enough XX they usually have to comply or pay a fine. but they don't have to face old Sparky.
You are so caught up on the word and assign such a negative value to it that it clouds your whole view of the situation.
Yes discriminating based on appearance or not is a preference.
Yes it's a preference but the discriminating part is when they use that preference to exclude a person from a situation like employment, or public exchange of goods etc..
Letting people hire who they wish with their own money is not akin to letting them run roughshod over a race..
People who want to do so.
You have this fear mongered implication that all of a sudden everyone will turn into racists and anti-tattoo kkk members if we let people choose who they want to associate with and start starving people to death, when in reality racism is wildly unpopular, most people are more than willing to work with people of any race, and most are open to working with people who have tattoos.
Its funny that you have to keep bringing up race to defend using government force to ban normal business practices like dress codes and standards.
We don't have anti-discrimination laws on the books because everybody plays nice. There weren't race riots in the last century because everyone was treated equally. There isn't still a strong membership in the KKK because everyone is now colorblind when it comes to race relations. The people that are in minority situations do need government protection against the bullies who would very much like to exclude them.
Discriminating based on tattoos and unkept looks is a useful thing for some businesses.
This usefulness doesn't disappear when your feelings come into play.
This is more strawman bullshit.
Respecting the property rights and civil liberties of employers is not at all the same as 'wanting the elite to have it all'
How intellectually bankrupt can you be? really.
Yes violently enforcing your moral code on others and stomping all over their basic rights like freedom of association is tyrannical. Even when you pretend its for the little guys.
This has all been covered.