Restaurant Refuses Service to Man Because of Facial Tattoos

[Kracov]

It said they were having gang problems.  I do wonder, would there be backlash against restaurants for banning members of Biker clubs for wearing MC vests?

[Rob I]

On 9/29/2016 at 9:29 AM, Kracov said:

It said they were having gang problems.  I do wonder, would there be backlash against restaurants for banning members of Biker clubs for wearing MC vests?

This happens all the time.  Tons of bars and restaurants display "no colors allowed" signs.  Funny thing is I've never seen any of the club members protesting or crying to their local news station about it. 

[a_beukeveld]

Businesses should be alloud to discriminate against anyone they want to. Its a priveledge to eat at a restaurant, not a right. This is the same situation as people complaining that they're discriminated against in job interviews because of they're tattoos/piercings. They're in their right for not hiring who they want for any reason. 

Besides, why would you want to eat/work somewhere where you're not welcome, just because they were forced to hire/serve. Imagine if tattooers were FORCED to tattoo anyone and anything, just so no one feels left out. Doesnt really make sense.

Edited October 1, 2016 by a_beukeveld

[Kracov]

On 10/1/2016 at 7:47 AM, a_beukeveld said:

Businesses should be alloud to discriminate against anyone they want to. Its a priveledge to eat at a restaurant, not a right. This is the same situation as people complaining that they're discriminated against in job interviews because of they're tattoos/piercings. They're in their right for not hiring who they want for any reason. 

Besides, why would you want to eat/work somewhere where you're not welcome, just because they were forced to hire/serve. Imagine if tattooers were FORCED to tattoo anyone and anything, just so no one feels left out. Doesnt really make sense.

There's a difference between being ABLE to serve someone based on safety, and disallowing them rights just because they hate people of color or sexual preference.  Should racism and homophobia really be tolerated and legalized?

[a_beukeveld]

47 minutes ago, Kracov said:

There's a difference between being ABLE to serve someone based on safety, and disallowing them rights just because they hate people of color or sexual preference.  Should racism and homophobia really be tolerated and legalized?

Why would you want to be served by/ work for someone who hates you? Forcing them to serve you makes zero sense, and I dont see how anyone could feel good about that. If they dont want you around, then dont go. Let them think what they want. Forcing people to comform to other's agendas doesnt work, and creates even more devision and hostility. Who cares.

Edited October 13, 2016 by a_beukeveld

[Kracov]

If we allow companies to discriminate and/or deny basic rights, we are only inviting protesting and riots.  Are you really that blind and ignorant? Have you forgotten about the riots in Ferguson, Milwaukee, Charlotte, etc?  The fact of the matter is that if a worker hates a group of people, and they can't serve them in public, then they cannot do their jobs properly, and should be fired.  The workers that get fired should get a solitary job, such as trucking, transportation, or anything where they don't have to deal with the masses.  As a society, we cannot PROMOTE hate and fear, that is what creates division and hostility.  Public servants are a great example.  They should not express their opinions about religion, sexual orientation, or racial hatred because they would be engaging in controversial topics that will only invite lawsuits and mass arguments.  People have to hold back their own negative agendas, thoughts, and feelings every day, so I don't see how this is any different.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Kracov

[Rob I]

We choose to get tattooed. We are not born with it. All choices have consequences good or bad.  

[Isotope]

Am I the only crazy bastard here who would wear this as a badge of honor?

[9Years]

@Kracov

Have you ever wondered why most private businesses have a prominently displayed sign reading "we reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE"? 

Hint: there is a word for forcing someone to provide goods, services and labor against their will...

 

[Kracov]

13 hours ago, 9Years said:

@Kracov

Have you ever wondered why most private businesses have a prominently displayed sign reading "we reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE"? 

Hint: there is a word for forcing someone to provide goods, services and labor against their will...

 

You are so ignorant of civil rights.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.  Do yourself a favor and read about it to spare yourself the embarassment.  http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

[Rob I]

Really dude???  Employers have to follow civil rights laws and yet still can hire and fire based on tattoos, piercings, hair length, facial hair...  don't believe me?  Try getting a job a Disneys magic kingdom

 

[DJDeepFried]

Tattooed people are not a protected class under the law. Neither are nudists by the way or any other voluntary lifestyle choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[9Years]

@Kracov

I know that:

"Man mildly inconvenienced due to voluntary, likely to be ostracizing, cosmetic choice" isn't as fun a headline but come on...

This is not a civil rights instance. Or at least it shouldn't be. Equating this circumstance to the terrible divisions and hate people faced (and still do in many parts of the world) is "embarrassing". Lumping things like this in with legitimate cases of discrimination trivializes the injustices those people are facing. 

And, since you side-stepped it in your other response: Who's rights are being violated if you are required by law to provide a service or labor for someone against your will because of a cosmetic life choice they made? Do others have a right to your labor simply because they ask? 

Rights have to go both ways if they are rights. 

 

[Twin Guillotines]

On 10/19/2016 at 6:59 AM, DJDeepFried said:

Tattooed people are not a protected class under the law. Neither are nudists by the way or any other voluntary lifestyle choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stuff and things. Professional tattooed people are ergo defined as protected by a statute of limitations, defined by socio-political discussions and their, oddly enough, worded as "people" with whom they discuss and are eventually felt to be held, by, importantly, outside influences on their previously set-in-stone choices. 

[DJDeepFried]

4 hours ago, Twin Guillotines said:

Stuff and things. Professional tattooed people are ergo defined as protected by a statute of limitations, defined by socio-political discussions and their, oddly enough, worded as "people" with whom they discuss and are eventually felt to be held, by, importantly, outside influences on their previously set-in-stone choices. 

So I made what I think is a valid point and you responded over two months later with a bunch of nonsense words, because...?

[Twin Guillotines]

16 hours ago, DJDeepFried said:

So I made what I think is a valid point and you responded over two months later with a bunch of nonsense words, because...?

Because I had to make a fool of myself on the internet. My bad, dude. I thought I was agreeing with you.

[DJDeepFried]

It's all good. Happy Christmakwanzaahanukkah -- or whatever pagan holiday you prefer!