Have a tattoo? Not allowed to the restaurant

[DigitalDrifter]

Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos

I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
Should people be allowed to discriminate based on tattoos, piercings or other body art so if they do it as some sort of art statement? Such a new kind of discrimination
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign? Probably yes.
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.

It's clear-cut discrimination. Can no more exclude service to someone with facial tattoos than you could someone super obese, with some disfigurement, or other abnormal appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.

Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.

Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.

1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.

And it allows others to make judgements about said people.

Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.

How is it discrimination when it's over tattoo's ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Can't think of anything stupider than getting tattoo's on your face.

there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face

--LOL

Drummer of Kiss ?

like a cat

paws on his hands as well

Bet his job choices are limited.

 

[dblack]

1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.

And it allows others to make judgements about said people.

Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.

A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.

You want stupidity to be a protected class?

A business sure can

are you sure about that

we have crossed a line some time back

in regards to individual freedoms


once the government can mandate that you buy a product

or face serious consequences for failing to do so

all bets are off

1st Amendment freedom of expression is the beginning and end to this matter. Can wear dayglo neon shirt and pants, have pink dyed hair and facial piercings and not be asked to leave a restaurant just like you can have an unsightly facial tattoo or anything else.

The First Amendment applies only to government - "Congress shall make no law ...." How do people miss that?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Under federal laws, it's illegal for a business that's open to the public to discriminate against a person based on a "protected trait" such as race, gender, and religion. Some state laws also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Age, however, is actually not protected. Neither are tattoos. Therefore, since tattooed patrons do not fall under a protected category, you are generally allowed to freely (and legally) refuse service to your customers based on their tattoos.

It Still Depends, Sometimes

However, you still need to be careful. While refusing service to all of your patrons with tattoos may not be discriminatory on its face, the discriminatory effect of your "no tattoos" policy can still be illegal. For example, if all the customers you refuse to serve happen to be of one race, or one religion, then this could lead to issues."
Legal to Refuse Service Over Tattoos - Free Enterprise


Because the restaurant is only discriminating against face tattoos, but not ALL tattoos, their discrimination is unconstitutional.

 

[Papageorgio]

Can't think of anything stupider than getting tattoo's on your face.

there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face

--LOL

Drummer of Kiss ?

like a cat

paws on his hands as well

Had a customer that had a low cut blouse on and she had paw tattoos on the top of her boobs, very distracting. A female coworker started talking to her about them and she informed us that she had them on her butt as well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Can't think of anything stupider than getting tattoo's on your face.

there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face

--LOL

Drummer of Kiss ?

like a cat

paws on his hands as well

Bet his job choices are limited.

he does not have a job

he is usually walking the down town streets

 

[Mr Natural]

Nobody wants to look at that, especially when they're eating.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.

And it allows others to make judgements about said people.

Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.

A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.

You want stupidity to be a protected class?

A business sure can

are you sure about that

we have crossed a line some time back

in regards to individual freedoms


once the government can mandate that you buy a product

or face serious consequences for failing to do so

all bets are off

1st Amendment freedom of expression is the beginning and end to this matter. Can wear dayglo neon shirt and pants, have pink dyed hair and facial piercings and not be asked to leave a restaurant just like you can have an unsightly facial tattoo or anything else.

So restaurants that require men to wear a suit and tie are violating the law ?

 

[Papageorgio]

"Under federal laws, it's illegal for a business that's open to the public to discriminate against a person based on a "protected trait" such as race, gender, and religion. Some state laws also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Age, however, is actually not protected. Neither are tattoos. Therefore, since tattooed patrons do not fall under a protected category, you are generally allowed to freely (and legally) refuse service to your customers based on their tattoos.

It Still Depends, Sometimes

However, you still need to be careful. While refusing service to all of your patrons with tattoos may not be discriminatory on its face, the discriminatory effect of your "no tattoos" policy can still be illegal. For example, if all the customers you refuse to serve happen to be of one race, or one religion, then this could lead to issues."
Legal to Refuse Service Over Tattoos - Free Enterprise


Because the restaurant is only discriminating against face tattoos, but not ALL tattoos, their discrimination is unconstitutional.

Your article says nothing about certain tattoos. They have nothing, since the guy is white, he is finished. If they enforce the rule equally, then they are fine.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Can't think of anything stupider than getting tattoo's on your face.

there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face

--LOL

Drummer of Kiss ?

like a cat

paws on his hands as well

Bet his job choices are limited.

he does not have a job

he is usually walking the down town streets

What a surprise.

 

[jon_berzerk]

there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face

--LOL

Drummer of Kiss ?

like a cat

paws on his hands as well

Bet his job choices are limited.

he does not have a job

he is usually walking the down town streets

What a surprise.

i have not talked to him in a year or so but

at that point he lived in some half way type house

 

[FJO]

Why should any sane and normal person choose to debase, defile and disrespect their body with a tattoo?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos

After catching Alan Jackson's country concert at the rodeo, two friends were hoping to grab a bite at Bombshells off of I-45 and Fuqua. But they never got that chance.
An HPD officer told Erik Leighton that management wanted him and his friend out. Folks with facial tattoos weren't allowed inside.

I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
Should people be allowed to discriminate based on tattoos, piercings or other body art so if they do it as some sort of art statement? Such a new kind of discrimination
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign? Probably yes.
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.

This is the problem with the so called equal rights amendment, it only protects certain classes which is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

They should have made an exception to their policy since the guy did not look at all like a gang member.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Do gang members actually go into decent restaurants to eat?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Do gang members actually go into decent restaurants to eat?

They may grab a donut or sandwich on their way out after robbing the place.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never understood the shitty grease-paint job on Darth Maul, they had a huge budget, but ended up with a second place Halloween costume.

 

[BullKurtz]

Who'd tat their face other than a nut or a criminal? Not apt to attract the early-bird special crowd with that kind of trash slinking around.

 

[September]

Nobody wants to look at that, especially when they're eating.

Who gives a fuck.

​

 

[whitehall]

Let's see how it works out. No doubt a high profile lawyer will take the case pro-bono and and the restaurant will cave. Personally I think "tramp stamps" on women are not attractive but that's just me.