Resolved: Employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on visible bodily tattoos

Rebuttals “You keep saying that a persons right do not trump an employers rights, when they both have the same rights. They just have more authority over them. ” Yes, they both have the same rights. Neither’s rights trumps the other's. “I'm saying that the employer should be forced to accept them, i'm saying that to deny them a job because of how they look is wrong. ” I’m assuming my opponent means that, “I’m NOT saying that the employer should be forced to accept them, but saying that to deny them a job because of how they look is wrong,” because her sentence did not make sense. Forcing the employer to hire someone they don’t want to is forcing them to accept them. It may be wrong, but the employer has property rights. “Again the employer and the employee have the same rights, they are no different, the only thing that is different is the power. ” I agree the have the same rights. Both of them have property rights as well. Since the applicant wants to get on the employer’s property, the employer has a right to deny for whatever reason. “Now you took what i said and completely jumbled it up, i did not say that, " My opponent also mentions that she can understand if the tattoo is 'visible'. However, if it were not visible, how would the employer know about the tattoo in the first place? " This waswhat i said, "You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive. " I said i could understand if it were offensive. not just visible. ” Thank you for clearing that up. My problem is that the word, “Offensive” is subjective by definition. (1) Different employers may find different things offensive. That said, it is not really the point. The point is, the employer owns the property and thus should be able to deny whoever he wants for whatever reason. The government should not be able to tell the employer why not to accept someone. “You right, you cannot choose your race or gender, but getting a tattoo, is making it apart of you, it is who you are, you are denying someone because of who they are. ” Organization skills, speaking skills, etc. and other skills the employer looks for is also part of “who you are”. That said, it is not really the point. The point is, the employer owns the property and thus should be able to deny whoever he wants for whatever reason. The government should not be able to tell the employer why not to accept someone. “Your not forcing anyone to hire them, you always have the option to hire someone or not too, but not based off what they look like. ”But WHY NOT what they look like? If the employer is forced to accept the way someone looks, then that person’s rights are trumping the employer’s. “What i am saying is that, if you go to a job where you have to deal with customers face to face everyday, for example being a waiter or waitress. And that person had tattoos that had swears in them, or something like that. That could be offensive to certain people they are waiting on, so no they wouldn't be right for that particular job. But, if they applied to the same place to work in the back of the house, then why should they be denied? ” I have addressed this many times. I don’t know and I don’t care why they should be denied. That is the employer’s choice, not mine. Neither is it the government’s choice. The employer should be able to deny whoever he wants for whatever reason. If the employer is forced to accept the way someone looks, then that person’s rights are trumping the employer’s. “The employer is violating your rights by judging how you look, it shouldn't matter what they look like if they can get the job done. property owner or not, your infringing on my rights. ” The employer has the right to judge you. That’s what his job is; to judge people. Judging looks are no different. “it shouldn't matter what they look like if they can get the job done. ” It’s not the government’s job to determine if people can get the job done or not! That’s the employer’s choice! My Opponent’s Argument P1: The employer does not have a valid reason to deny the person a job. P2: It is wrong to judge someone based on looks. C: It should be illegal to deny someone a job based on tattoos. Refuting P1: The employer may or may not have a valid reason. His reasoning does not matter because it’s not the government’s place to regulate what reasoning an employer has for hiring someone. To make it illegal for an employer to deny someone based on bad reasoning is ridiculous. Refuting P2: It may be wrong to do that, but the employer has property rights. It is also wrong for the employer to be forced to accept someone they don’t want to accept. C: It should not be illegal. What My Opponent Has Not Addressed Employers have property rights. By denying someone because of tattoos, that person’s rights are not violated. The person can still get or wear tattoos. Theemployer did not take those rights away. They simply denied those rights on their property. As a property owner, the employer has the right to choose what happens on and who enters his property. It is impossible to effectively make it legal to only deny people who have “offensive” tattoos, as my opponent suggests. “Offensive” is subjective and employers can easily find reasons to make any tattoo offensive. The employer and the applicant have equal rights. The rights of the applicant does not trump the rights of the employer. By forcing the employer to accept someone, the rights of the applicant is trumping the rights of the employer. Voting Analysis Arguments: My opponent has not even attempted to refute my property rights argument. Spelling and Grammar: I think this one is obvious. Conduct: My opponent posted opening arguments in the acceptance only Round 1. Conclusion My opponent has not refuted most of my arguments. It should be legal for employers to deny employment based on a visible bodily tattoo. I thank my opponent for this debate, and vote Pro! Sources1. . http://www.bing.com...