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

I apologize for my rushed response, I barely have any time left. Rebuttals“Deny a person a job because of tattoos is wrong for multiple reasons, 1) you would be denying someone the right to be themselves and display that. 2) Its discriminating against that person. ” A person’s rights; how they dress, speak, etc. do not trump an employer's rights as a private property owner. By forcing an employer to hire someone, the employer’s rights are being trumped. The person has the right to have tattoos, but the employer should not be forced to accept the person. “Reason 1- As you should know, body modification is a huge part of our society today. Everyday people are modifying their bodies, people are ether getting tattoos, having plastic sugary done, piercings or anything like that. ”I agree. “For you to go into a job and be denied that job that your are perfectly qualified for because you have tattoos is wrong. ”This may be true. However, by forcing an employer to hire someone, the employer’s rights are being trumped. A person’s rights to speak, dress, have tattoos do not trump the employer’s rights. “Now, i can completely understand why an employer would deny that person if the have offensive, or inappropriate tattoos, that were visible. ” In this case, should it be legal? It looks like my opponent is conceding part of the OP. I would also like to make the point that there is no objective standard of “offensive” or “inappropriate” tattoos, and thus, you cannot make it illegal for the employer to only deny certain types of tattoos. 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? “But if someone have full sleeve tattoos, in which non are inappropriate, and they are better for the job then any other person in that room. Why would you deny them that job? ” The employer may have his own reasons. I do not know. “It is defiantly discriminating against the person with the tattoos. Because they are being judged on what they look like rather then what they can do. ”Some employers may have their reasons in denying people with tattoos. There is a major difference between denying because of tattoos and denying because of race, gender, etc. You cannot choose your race or your gender, but you CAN choose to have tattoos. Again, by forcing an employer to hire someone, the employer’s rights are being trumped. The person has the right to have tattoos, but the employer should not be forced to accept the person. “You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive. ”My opponent has conceded that employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on SOME tattoos. “If it is not offensive in any way then they are discriminating. ”What is the difference? The term “offensive” is defined as, “upsetting, insulting, or irritating:causing anger, resentment, or moral outrage. ” (1) It is easy to see how different employers may have different standards of what is deemed offensive. There is no way to objectively define “offensive”. There is no way to legally restrict employers to only be able to deny offensive tattoos. Employers can easily fish for and find any reason that a tattoo may “offend” someone. “When the employer denies that person a job because of their tattoo, what could be their reasoning? ” Their reasoning does not matter in this debate. The employers should be able to deny that tattooed person a job for whatever reason. “This does not state that you have to look a certain way in order to be professional. If you have full sleeve tattoos, yet you can dressappropriately and do the job correctly what is the problem? ” Professionalism itself is subjective. There may be no problem, but it’s the employer’s choice. The government can’t tell employerswhat to deem “professional”, or “offensive”, and it is certainly not the government’s job to decide for employers if a person is suited for the job or not. “A person can have their property rights all they want but everyone still has their own rights, just because you are an employer does not mean your rights trump mine, only your authority does. ” The point is; the employer is not violating your rights. You can still get or wear tattoos. The employer 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. Summary of Argument-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. -The employer should have the property rights to decide who he hires for whatever reason. -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. -By denying someone because of tattoos, that person’s rights are not violated. The person can still get or wear tattoos. The employer 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. Sources 1. . http://www.bing.com...