No. I see the point, especially with the cultural heritage of some societies, but I don't think so. Perhaps I can be convinced.
Some Gold Coast nightclubs now ban visible ink
Given that this is Bogan Central, there must be something to it
You should be able to discriminate, but only in extreme situations. I can appreciate a nice sleeve, or something subtle, and have a tattoo myself, but if you get your face or neck tattoo'd, or are happy walking around with a massive visible "tribal" piece, you deserve to get discriminated against, as you look like a ****.
Originally Posted by CricinfoOriginally Posted by Cricinfo
What makes a tattoo different to any of the things you can't discriminate based upon? Especially in the case of a small butterfly or something equally unimportant?
Trying to enforce a rule whereby someone attempted to ban their employees from having any tattoos whatsoever would undoubtedly be unlawful.
~Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
The Cricket Web Podcast - episode 11 out now
We're on iTunes - why not give us a review?
RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014
The Wheel of Mediocrity | Compton, Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen, Hales | The wheel is forever
Founder and Grand Wizard of the CW Football Thread Statluminati. Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.
Must admit it is off putting for some reason when you are getting fresh food from a shop and you can see loads of tattoos on display be it hands, arms or neck.
Does that mean I live in the dark ages? Maybe but then again I have never felt the need to get a tattoo as I think they look crap.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)