If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mirror.co.uk)   Man goes out to find out why a full-face tattooed man can't get a job, with surprising results   (mirror.co.uk) divider line 139
    More: Obvious, London Eye, Harrods, Piccadilly Circus, mixed martial arts, tattoos, Ritz Hotel  
•       •       •

19482 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2014 at 5:47 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 12:58:44 PM

Pangea: 99sportster: Hawnkee: [www.vaporsnyc.com image 610x629]

Strange.  Both my forearms are tattooed, and my W-2 says I paid about $18,200 in taxes last year.

Perhaps I should let the IRS know about this picture, and they'll give it all back.

Perhaps a person with fewer tattoos could have sheltered their money a little better.


Doubtful.  My IRA/401k contributions are maxed, and my accountant does a pretty good job juggling what's left.  I'm pretty sure I'm just paying "my fair share".   The accountant got it close enough this year that I'm only writing a check for an additional $455.  That was probably caused by my end-of-year bonus being higher than expected.  I'll take that.
 
2014-02-06 01:14:36 PM
I view tattoos the same way I view smoking, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, having unprotected sex with strangers, and cashing out your 401k and placing it all on black in Las Vegas: you're utterly and completely within your rights to live your life in these ways, but they're all decisions that are dumb as hell and show poor judgement or inability to think critically about risk and the potential impacts for the rest of your life.

Also, when it comes to women and tattoos, I've never looked at a beautiful woman and thought to myself, "Wow...she'd look a LOT better with a bunch of shiatty blue and green ink all over her!"
 
2014-02-06 01:15:53 PM

Valiente: GameSprocket: What's with all the "dress codes" for getting into businesses? I guess a fancy restaurant might require a jacket and tie, but I can't say that I have ever actually been to a place that even does that.

May I interest you in a slightly used penis gourd? I'd post a picture, but based on the post deletion I scored yesterday for a profile shot of Liz Hurley's backside, I would ask you to just GIS it.

/penis gourd.


Screw that! I am going to GIS Liz Hurley's backside!
 
2014-02-06 01:18:15 PM

Pribar: There was a study done in the 60s or 70s that gauged peoples reaction to dialects, the conclusion that the researcher came to is that we are very social little monkeys at our core, upon hearing a familiar dialect we group people into the "brother" category, hear a different dialect and its into the "other" category, the more unfamiliar the dialect the higher the tension and distrust was, This is on the same principle, what is familiar is ok what is outside the norm sets off the little monkey still buried in our hindbrain screaming for us to run. Its the seat of all the"isms"  (racism, sexism, etc) but in this case its a self inflicted banishment to the "other" category


I don't believe in isms.

/not obscure
 
2014-02-06 01:20:37 PM
gretzkyscores:

Also, when it comes to women and tattoos, I've never looked at a beautiful woman and thought to myself, "Wow...she'd look a LOT better with a bunch of shiatty blue and green ink all over her!"

Well, to be fair, I've been with some lanky pale Goth chicks on whom a well-made tat was quite fetching in the moonlight, but they tend to blow their art-school tuitions on the higher end tattooists.

Said better or more intricate tats can also indicate a preference for non-vanilla activities.

Now, I like vanilla, but not every day. Sometimes you just want Rocky Road, Tiger Tiger or lubed up and lashed over a pommel horse.

/the last is not a flavour so much as a lifestyle choice.
 
2014-02-06 01:21:52 PM
Yo, facepaint guy, imma let you finish, but "I like turtles" kid had one of the best facepaints of all time.  OF ALL TIME!
 
2014-02-06 01:23:44 PM
tattoospedia.com

LOL.

WUT?
 
2014-02-06 01:29:26 PM

lohphat: [tattoospedia.com image 697x540]

LOL.

WUT?


That guy is going to have NO excuse if it turns out that Leviticus wasn't just stoned out of his mind.
 
2014-02-06 01:32:42 PM

gretzkyscores: Also, when it comes to women and tattoos, I've never looked at a beautiful woman and thought to myself, "Wow...she'd look a LOT better with a bunch of shiatty blue and green ink all over her!"


Agreed.  Although some tramp stamps can provide useful warnings just before it's too late.  Almost like a public service.
 
2014-02-06 01:47:05 PM

gretzkyscores: I view tattoos the same way I view smoking, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, having unprotected sex with strangers, and cashing out your 401k and placing it all on black in Las Vegas: you're utterly and completely within your rights to live your life in these ways, but they're all decisions that are dumb as hell and show poor judgement or inability to think critically about risk and the potential impacts for the rest of your life.


While many people do any or all of the above and more well aware of possible impacts....and find that they simply don't care.

You view other people's choices as "poor".  That is your base argument.

It is very much the same unintelligent blather people go on about when discussing homosexuals.  What they do is obviously not your cup of tea, but as long as they're not doing it to you, why do you seem to care so much?

Mostly, it's "stop liking what I don't like".  I don't like asparagus, but I don't go out of my way to badmouth people who like to eat it, especially not as if it's the most offensive thing in the world, making them into lesser people, barely human at all.

I think it is a manifestation of self loathing.  You're pissed that so much of the world is not similar to you, not because you're self centered.  Well, you are in a way, but it is a self defense rationalization for knowing that you're the judgemental freak with some serious flaws and social issues.  You have a hard time admitting the truth, so you deflect.

Very common with "stop liking...." people in general.  Why don't those people suffer like I do?  They should, damnit!11!!! This is a horrible life and people should not be enjoying themselves or practicing their rights!!11!

A very close cousin to the religious puritan.  All these things they believe are "bad" are tools of the devil, so one must live a dreary life of sacrifice to stay away from "evil", because GOD!

Sure, if they want the benefit of their 401k  investments in the future, it's a bad idea to gamble it away.  IF   IF

See, the folly of projecting your status on other individuals?  Do you even know the meaning of what it is to be an individual?  Not unique, mind you, that's not possible with a population the size of humanity's.  But there is a very high amount of variance.

Within that variation, there are a LOT of people that are not like you, with different goals, aspirations, different tastes, different cares, etc.

It is a shame that so many people never attain self awareness and harbor such vast amounts of cognitive dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
 
2014-02-06 01:50:37 PM

zimbomba63: MightyPez: Bukharin: skinink: i have a tribal tat. yeah, you and 47 million others.what's your point?

I dont mind tats, within reason, but why get tribal tats when you arent in that tribe? I dont get it. It's like getting a david star when you arent a jew.

But what if you are jewish?

I thought tattoos weren't considered "kosher" for Jews.  Maybe, I heard wrong.

/ No tats
// Not Jewish


Jewish law forbids them, but the old chestnut that you can't be buried in a Jewish cemetery if you have a tattoo is false.
 
2014-02-06 01:51:37 PM

8 inches: MightyPez: Bukharin: skinink: i have a tribal tat. yeah, you and 47 million others.what's your point?

I dont mind tats, within reason, but why get tribal tats when you arent in that tribe? I dont get it. It's like getting a david star when you arent a jew.

But what if you are jewish?

Then you couldn't be buried in a Jewish cemetery.


False.
 
2014-02-06 03:04:31 PM

mike_d85: Witness99: skinink: i think it's so stupid when i see these young adults who are covered in them and expect me to be impressed. tats are ugly to me. i would never even consider getting one. it makes me laugh when i hear people say that they got theirs to define who they are personally. hahaha, are you kidding me? how can they be individuals when they are the very definition of conformity? EVERYONE nowadays, seems to have them. i have noticed also that many people who have them want people to be scared of them. why? why should i be scared of you? what,because you're a nut case with poor impulse control?it's like ok i get it; you have a lot of tattoos. i get it,you like wasting your money.

i get it,you have a disposable income. why don't these people really try to be different? whenever they do get 'em,their tats are ALWAYS--- THE SAME! hey look at me, i have a tribal tat. yeah, you and 47 million others.what's your point?you wanna impress me? don't get one! tats are almost always associated with people who make bad choices in life. some of these choices affect only them,but unfortunately, most of their choices negatively impact innocent people's lives. like gangs-for instance;they are always covered in them.

And here I've been picturing you covered in tattoos all this time, based only on your Fark handle!

I just assumed s/he liked the Elaphant Show.
Skinamarink a dink a dink.
Skinamarink a doo.


When I get done choking on the chips I was just eating, you owe me a new keyboard.
 
2014-02-06 03:06:03 PM

vudukungfu: I'm so edgy, I have no ink.


That's how I feel about it.
 
2014-02-06 03:06:13 PM

tripleseven: GameSprocket: What's with all the "dress codes" for getting into businesses? I guess a fancy restaurant might require a jacket and tie, but I can't say that I have ever actually been to a place that even does that.

Yeah WTF...

A face tattoo violates a dress code? Why? He is wearing the proper attire.

I know this is the UK and all but I'm thinking in the us, being denied access for a tattoo is grounds for a 'suin...


Well, unfortunately for you, being a moron isn't a protected class.

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" (that isn't a protected class, even if that has nothing to do with our reasoning)
 
2014-02-06 04:06:35 PM

Ivandrago: Slaxl: I met a girl with a tattoo inked up the side of her body, with a pathetic "inspirational" quote about love. The quote itself was the kind of brainless mush people think is deep, but in reality devoid of intelligence. It would have been bad enough posted on Facebook, like many reprobates do, but to get it tattoo'd all up the side of her body? It's just ... baffling.

I don't care about normal tattoos, pictures n' stuff, not my thing but go for it, I can at least understand why people do it, but the quotations? They're always 100% awful. Can someone put a stop to it? Thanks.

I've got "once more unto the breach dear friends, once more" from Henry V on my right arm to commemorate going to Iraq a second time with the same group of close friends I went with the first time. Is that awful?


No, I was talking about the stupid lovey quotes that they think are deep. It was huge, took up half her body. It wasn't clever, or classy, or had any significance like yours does. Like I said, baffling.

You did well to choose Henry V, aside from being an apt quotation, I could rattle off the St. Crispin's day speech, and do - on the eve of Crispian. We English don't do nationalism and national pride as well as Americans, but on the eve of the battle of Agincourt I like to remind everyone around me that it's not racist to be proud of being English. Especially the French. I love reminding them.
 
2014-02-06 04:17:09 PM
I hate these bloggers that play pretend dress up and think that they're even acting remotely similar to the actual people they're studying.  If they don't get a reaction that meets their preconceived notions, they'll act continually stupider until they get a reaction.

I put on a red hat and danced naked in the middle of the road.  People were pissed!  This proves that there's a serious red hat hatred in this country.

Likewise, going about your business like an average social person who just happens to have a full facial tattoo isn't going to give you much of the same experience.

Granted, I've only met one guy personally with a grinning skull tat across his forehead, but he was an anti social lunatic.  Within minutes of meeting him, he was gay bashing, cop bashing, furious at the world for not accepting him for the unique snowflake he was.  He was also old, had really bad teeth, smelled and living in a run down shack.  (I'm a volunteer driver for the elderly, I meet all types.)   I'm sure there are some quite pleasant people with facial tats as well.
 
2014-02-06 04:26:16 PM

Kahabut: tripleseven: GameSprocket: What's with all the "dress codes" for getting into businesses? I guess a fancy restaurant might require a jacket and tie, but I can't say that I have ever actually been to a place that even does that.

Yeah WTF...

A face tattoo violates a dress code? Why? He is wearing the proper attire.

I know this is the UK and all but I'm thinking in the us, being denied access for a tattoo is grounds for a 'suin...

Well, unfortunately for you, being a moron isn't a protected class.

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" (that isn't a protected class, even if that has nothing to do with our reasoning)


Good thing I am a moron. Because refusing service based on an arbitrary reason even outside of a "protected class" can, and has been litigated.
 
2014-02-06 04:35:28 PM

skinink: i think it's so stupid when i see these young adults who are covered in them and expect me to be impressed. tats are ugly to me. i would never even consider getting one. it makes me laugh when i hear people say that they got theirs to define who they are personally. hahaha, are you kidding me? how can they be individuals when they are the very definition of conformity? EVERYONE nowadays, seems to have them. i have noticed also that many people who have them want people to be scared of them. why? why should i be scared of you? what,because you're a nut case with poor impulse control?it's like ok i get it; you have a lot of tattoos. i get it,you like wasting your money.

i get it,you have a disposable income. why don't these people really try to be different? whenever they do get 'em,their tats are ALWAYS--- THE SAME! hey look at me, i have a tribal tat. yeah, you and 47 million others.what's your point?you wanna impress me? don't get one! tats are almost always associated with people who make bad choices in life. some of these choices affect only them,but unfortunately, most of their choices negatively impact innocent people's lives. like gangs-for instance;they are always covered in them.


Says someone named "Skinink".  LOL
 
2014-02-06 04:36:09 PM
And again, I am not a lawyer, and consequently, also not a moron.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_Unruh.htm


Yes, this is specific to California, but it basically expands on the federal civil rights act, and expressly states you cannot refuse service based on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds.

Tattoos on the face are pretty arbitrary reason for being refused service.

If I had a face tattoo, and was refused service, you bet I'd be 'suin.


In any case, it matters not, as the article is specific to Britain.
 
2014-02-06 05:04:57 PM

tripleseven: And again, I am not a lawyer, and consequently, also not a moron.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_Unruh.htm


Yes, this is specific to California, but it basically expands on the federal civil rights act, and expressly states you cannot refuse service based on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds.

Tattoos on the face are pretty arbitrary reason for being refused service.

If I had a face tattoo, and was refused service, you bet I'd be 'suin.


In any case, it matters not, as the article is specific to Britain.


Your assumption that someone with a face tattoo could afford a lawyer is amusing.

Good luck out there in the real world, where no one cares how precious your snowflake is.
 
2014-02-06 05:14:42 PM

Kahabut: tripleseven: And again, I am not a lawyer, and consequently, also not a moron.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_Unruh.htm


Yes, this is specific to California, but it basically expands on the federal civil rights act, and expressly states you cannot refuse service based on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds.

Tattoos on the face are pretty arbitrary reason for being refused service.

If I had a face tattoo, and was refused service, you bet I'd be 'suin.


In any case, it matters not, as the article is specific to Britain.

Your assumption that someone with a face tattoo could afford a lawyer is amusing.

Good luck out there in the real world, where no one cares how precious your snowflake is.


Nice rebuttal.

I'm sure when in your original response you smiled to yourself when typing moron, and you thought you'd "show me".

I am even sure your pulse went up a few ticks as you indignantly mashed the caps lock key.

But in the end, you got burned

Sorry.
 
2014-02-06 05:21:02 PM

tripleseven: Kahabut: tripleseven: And again, I am not a lawyer, and consequently, also not a moron.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_Unruh.htm


Yes, this is specific to California, but it basically expands on the federal civil rights act, and expressly states you cannot refuse service based on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds.

Tattoos on the face are pretty arbitrary reason for being refused service.

If I had a face tattoo, and was refused service, you bet I'd be 'suin.


In any case, it matters not, as the article is specific to Britain.

Your assumption that someone with a face tattoo could afford a lawyer is amusing.

Good luck out there in the real world, where no one cares how precious your snowflake is.

Nice rebuttal.

I'm sure when in your original response you smiled to yourself when typing moron, and you thought you'd "show me".

I am even sure your pulse went up a few ticks as you indignantly mashed the caps lock key.

But in the end, you got burned

Sorry.


How the hell do you figure?  You quote a specific law that doesn't apply to, pretty much anyone, and which can't be shown to apply even to the situation at hand.  As that would require proof that you know what the business owners motives would be, and you can't.  Also, no one cares what the nanny state of California has to say on the subject.

Stop acting like a child.  I'll be back when you grow up and want to discuss the merits of getting full facial tattoos, and if it constitutes discrimination to refuse someone that stupid service.
 
2014-02-06 05:39:24 PM

Kahabut: tripleseven: Kahabut: tripleseven: And again, I am not a lawyer, and consequently, also not a moron.

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_Unruh.htm


Yes, this is specific to California, but it basically expands on the federal civil rights act, and expressly states you cannot refuse service based on arbitrary or unreasonable grounds.

Tattoos on the face are pretty arbitrary reason for being refused service.

If I had a face tattoo, and was refused service, you bet I'd be 'suin.


In any case, it matters not, as the article is specific to Britain.

Your assumption that someone with a face tattoo could afford a lawyer is amusing.

Good luck out there in the real world, where no one cares how precious your snowflake is.

Nice rebuttal.

I'm sure when in your original response you smiled to yourself when typing moron, and you thought you'd "show me".

I am even sure your pulse went up a few ticks as you indignantly mashed the caps lock key.

But in the end, you got burned

Sorry.

How the hell do you figure?  You quote a specific law that doesn't apply to, pretty much anyone, and which can't be shown to apply even to the situation at hand.  As that would require proof that you know what the business owners motives would be, and you can't.  Also, no one cares what the nanny state of California has to say on the subject.

Stop acting like a child.  I'll be back when you grow up and want to discuss the merits of getting full facial tattoos, and if it constitutes discrimination to refuse someone that stupid service.


I can smell the smoke from here.

Your original debate was that unless you were a member of a protected class you could be refused service for anything.

No, not really. You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne. Likewise a very decent argument could be made that it can also apply to facial tattoos. As long as they aren't obscene, racist, or possibly gang affiliated, you'd have a decent case for a lawsuit. Which was my original statement.

You on the other hand, whargarbled your Weeners, adding an insult. So very clever. You were subsequently proved wrong, and responded by moving the goalpost, adding in a strawman, and a healthy dose of conjecture.

Congrats, you hit the internet argument trifecta.
 
2014-02-06 06:17:45 PM
I do the bulk of hiring for my company.  And I'm with a lot of the people here in this thread who generally try to pigeonhole and then denigrate entire swaths of people by something as trivial as fashion.  I, too, will turn someone out on the street if they don't adhere to a very strict set of codes, both external and internal, that I also adhere to.  I say "well, good luck on your continued unemployment....not!" and send them on their way. And you know what?  I've managed to hire some pretty stupid and worthless douchebags.  Truly a bunch of assholes, through and through.  But hey, none of them have that certain trait that I personally find mildly non-offensive, so....there's that.
 
2014-02-06 06:55:31 PM

tripleseven: I can smell the smoke from here.

Your original debate was that unless you were a member of a protected class you could be refused service for anything.

No, not really. You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne. Likewise a very decent argument could be made that it can also apply to facial tattoos. As long as they aren't obscene, racist, or possibly gang affiliated, you'd have a decent case for a lawsuit. Which was my original statement.

You on the other hand, whargarbled your Weeners, adding an insult. So very clever. You were subsequently proved wrong, and responded by moving the goalpost, adding in a strawman, and a healthy dose of conjecture.

Congrats, you hit the internet argument trifecta.


Whichever department of the intarwebs is responsible for starting memes better be all over that.
 
2014-02-06 07:00:59 PM
How can we forget these blasts from the past?

lh5.googleusercontent.com

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-06 07:28:26 PM

LoneVVolf: tripleseven: I can smell the smoke from here.

Your original debate was that unless you were a member of a protected class you could be refused service for anything.

No, not really. You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne. Likewise a very decent argument could be made that it can also apply to facial tattoos. As long as they aren't obscene, racist, or possibly gang affiliated, you'd have a decent case for a lawsuit. Which was my original statement.

You on the other hand, whargarbled your Weeners, adding an insult. So very clever. You were subsequently proved wrong, and responded by moving the goalpost, adding in a strawman, and a healthy dose of conjecture.

Congrats, you hit the internet argument trifecta.

Whichever department of the intarwebs is responsible for starting memes better be all over that.


Apparently its the fark filter. It originally said "Boobies". Or Boobies.
 
2014-02-06 07:29:18 PM

tripleseven: LoneVVolf: tripleseven: I can smell the smoke from here.

Your original debate was that unless you were a member of a protected class you could be refused service for anything.

No, not really. You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne. Likewise a very decent argument could be made that it can also apply to facial tattoos. As long as they aren't obscene, racist, or possibly gang affiliated, you'd have a decent case for a lawsuit. Which was my original statement.

You on the other hand, whargarbled your Weeners, adding an insult. So very clever. You were subsequently proved wrong, and responded by moving the goalpost, adding in a strawman, and a healthy dose of conjecture.

Congrats, you hit the internet argument trifecta.

Whichever department of the intarwebs is responsible for starting memes better be all over that.

Apparently its the fark filter. It originally said "Boobies". Or Boobies.


fark it. Goddam filter.
 
2014-02-06 08:46:45 PM

tripleseven: tripleseven: LoneVVolf: tripleseven: I can smell the smoke from here.

Your original debate was that unless you were a member of a protected class you could be refused service for anything.

No, not really. You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne. Likewise a very decent argument could be made that it can also apply to facial tattoos. As long as they aren't obscene, racist, or possibly gang affiliated, you'd have a decent case for a lawsuit. Which was my original statement.

You on the other hand, whargarbled your Weeners, adding an insult. So very clever. You were subsequently proved wrong, and responded by moving the goalpost, adding in a strawman, and a healthy dose of conjecture.

Congrats, you hit the internet argument trifecta.

Whichever department of the intarwebs is responsible for starting memes better be all over that.

Apparently its the fark filter. It originally said "Boobies". Or Boobies.

fark it. Goddam filter.


you really are kind of special aren't you?
 
2014-02-06 08:59:44 PM

Kahabut: tripleseven: tripleseven: LoneVVolf: tripleseven: I can smell the smoke from here.

Your original debate was that unless you were a member of a protected class you could be refused service for anything.

No, not really. You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne. Likewise a very decent argument could be made that it can also apply to facial tattoos. As long as they aren't obscene, racist, or possibly gang affiliated, you'd have a decent case for a lawsuit. Which was my original statement.

You on the other hand, whargarbled your Weeners, adding an insult. So very clever. You were subsequently proved wrong, and responded by moving the goalpost, adding in a strawman, and a healthy dose of conjecture.

Congrats, you hit the internet argument trifecta.

Whichever department of the intarwebs is responsible for starting memes better be all over that.

Apparently its the fark filter. It originally said "Boobies". Or Boobies.

fark it. Goddam filter.

you really are kind of special aren't you?


Sure...as you said I'm a snowflake.
 
2014-02-07 01:18:20 AM

tripleseven: You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne.


could you cite the law that says that?

kthxsby!
 
2014-02-07 11:31:11 AM

log_jammin: tripleseven: You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne.

could you cite the law that says that?

kthxsby!


I've already provided a link. Scroll up.
 
2014-02-07 11:42:55 AM
No. Just link it.
 
2014-02-07 12:00:47 PM

log_jammin: tripleseven: You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne.

could you cite the law that says that?

kthxsby!


As a business owner you can refuse to serve anybody you choose.  Private Property.   Now get off my lawn.

/no shirt, no shoes, no service.
 
2014-02-07 12:57:34 PM

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: log_jammin: tripleseven: You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne.

could you cite the law that says that?

kthxsby!

As a business owner you can refuse to serve anybody you choose.  Private Property.   Now get off my lawn.

/no shirt, no shoes, no service.


I see that you're another one who failed to read the link provided.

No shoes, no shirt no service is likely covered under health codes.  Refusing to serve someone for an arbitrary reason, when they are complicit with all other standards is not specifically defined in law (except California, and I suspect a few other states, but I'm not doing your homework for you).  In short, yeah, you have every right to "WHARGARBLE I WILL REFUSE ANYONE I DONT LIKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WHARGARBLE" all you like.  That sign wont indemnify you against a lawsuit if you decided not to serve someone because you don't like their face.
 
2014-02-07 01:08:59 PM
I'll also add that I am not a lawyer.  Any posts made by me in this thread are not to be construed as legal advice in any way.
 
2014-02-07 05:27:43 PM

tripleseven: Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: log_jammin: tripleseven: You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne.

could you cite the law that says that?

kthxsby!

As a business owner you can refuse to serve anybody you choose.  Private Property.   Now get off my lawn.

/no shirt, no shoes, no service.

I see that you're another one who failed to read the link provided.

No shoes, no shirt no service is likely covered under health codes.  Refusing to serve someone for an arbitrary reason, when they are complicit with all other standards is not specifically defined in law (except California, and I suspect a few other states, but I'm not doing your homework for you).  In short, yeah, you have every right to "WHARGARBLE I WILL REFUSE ANYONE I DONT LIKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WHARGARBLE" all you like.  That sign wont indemnify you against a lawsuit if you decided not to serve someone because you don't like their face.


I think it pretty much depends on if you are in a 'protected class'  like black, Asian, gay, etc.  For example: in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.
So I'm guessing if you are black with a face tattoo you will be allowed in.  If you're white - HOLD ON THEIR SON.  Unless the business owner can prove that the face tattoo makes him some sort of rival gang.

/not a lawyer or lawyer's spokesman.
//did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night however.
 
2014-02-07 07:00:37 PM

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: tripleseven: Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: log_jammin: tripleseven: You can't refuse to serve redheads. You can't refuse service to someone with acne.

could you cite the law that says that?

kthxsby!

As a business owner you can refuse to serve anybody you choose.  Private Property.   Now get off my lawn.

/no shirt, no shoes, no service.

I see that you're another one who failed to read the link provided.

No shoes, no shirt no service is likely covered under health codes.  Refusing to serve someone for an arbitrary reason, when they are complicit with all other standards is not specifically defined in law (except California, and I suspect a few other states, but I'm not doing your homework for you).  In short, yeah, you have every right to "WHARGARBLE I WILL REFUSE ANYONE I DONT LIKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WHARGARBLE" all you like.  That sign wont indemnify you against a lawsuit if you decided not to serve someone because you don't like their face.

I think it pretty much depends on if you are in a 'protected class'  like black, Asian, gay, etc.  For example: in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.
So I'm guessing if you are black with a face tattoo you will be allowed in.  If you're white - HOLD ON THEIR SON.  Unless the business owner can prove that the face tattoo makes him some sort of rival gang.

/not a lawyer or lawyer's spokesman.
//did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night however.


His point is not that it's expressly illegal, but that someone could possibly sue and win, even with said party being outside that specified sub-class of people.

The red-head is a pretty plain example.  Really, in the spirit of the law, it's no different than banning people in silly hats with beards and big noses.

The laws are written for specific classes because there was already heavy persecution against them, but who's to say they're not also preventative measure about choosing a different genetic trait such as red hair.

The facial tattoo thing, it all would come down to what sort of business it is.   Specific clubs with a specific target clientele, that would be understandable to many.  I wouldn't want someone in assless black leather chaps and other S&M biker gear in my western themed establishment where all attending wear western wear, or as my lawyer or doctor.

but if he's being banned from any given store that really want's everyone's money and doesn't really have a dress code, he could stand to win.

I mean, what if Wal-mart had a dress code and refused service to people that were fully clothed but looked "ugly"?

If it were a blanket practice(even if just for a given store), they would certainly stand to lose a lot of money.

Now, the way most of these places are able to exclude someone, they have a plethora of examples of how they let similar guy X do as he would.  It goes to prove they based their ban on personal behavior more than his appearance.

If you ban one shabbily dressed(say, stained sweats and a hoodie) red-head from your nightclub, but let the hot ones(in stylish apparel) in, you couldn't claim they barred all people of red hair.

Even if a place is found "not guilty" of prejudice on scale, the court case can draw enough attention to add a given class or establish a re-wording of the law.  If found "guilty" a court could manage to set an important precedent and a large step for the same changes. There is a definite grey area where law on such a thing is concerned, whether or not it's technically illegal is sometimes irrelevant.
 
Displayed 39 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report