Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
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?
"One common factor with gangs are face and neck tattoos. We can't allow gangs to overtake our establishment." - the company wrote.
Sorry, but your fear of face\neck tattoo, that signifies for you ONLY gangs signs, is your problem and not the reason to refuse service people...
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign?
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 appearance. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since he should known better. Where is the root of the problem? Welcome to the USA the freest country
What? I would sit right next to anyone at a lunch/snack bar that
had tats or studs in their face or neck.
Now, if they wanted to be seen with me is the question!
Sounds like discrimination like the 60-70s when guys had long hair...
and hippies were thought to be dirty...people still
think Willie Nelson is dirty! Geeze.
As mentioned above, tattooed people are not a protected class. The restaurant can refuse service. However, as the saying goes, "just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should."
I would not be broken hearted to hear that business suffers after people hear about this.
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 appearance. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since he should known better. Where is the root of the problem? Welcome to the USA the freest country
In a situation like this, people have the freedom to choose. Just because you disagree with it, it should be against the law to discriminate against people with tattoos? Yet your statement indicates your disdain for the laws protecting the restaurant owner.
I don't have a problem with tattoos. It's a person's right to choose to have tattoos, piercings, whatever.
I also don't have a problem with a privately owned & operated business refusing service to someone. It's their right.
If I did have a problem with it, I'd choose take my business & money elsewhere. That's my right.
It makes me wonder if a gay person opened a store or a tatooed person opened
a store and placed a sign that said, No straight people allowed or
We only serve those with tats or piercings.
Can you DO that? I dunno, I'm asking.
Is that allowed? Would they be protected by law?
I wanted to rent 28 years ago and was asked if I was Christian!
I was very surprised by the question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ditto,
