If you want to choose the tattoos, then others are allowed to make their choice. Pretty simple.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Have a tattoo? Not allowed to the restaurant
- Thread starter Figaro
- Start date
If you want to choose the tattoos, then others are allowed to make their choice. Pretty simple.
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
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.
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
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? Such a new kind of discrimination
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign? Probably yes.
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
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 appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.
Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Figaro
VIP Member
- Jul 23, 2014
- 328
- 56
- 80
- Thread starter
- #23
I do. It would make me physically ill to have a tattooed person eating at the next table.Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
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.
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
... Snip...
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
Maybe it would make him physically ill to have YOU eating at the next table
Maybe it was a Jewish establishment. Tottoos are forbidden in the Torah. Probably not though. Can businesses discriminate based on...anything you ask? Well unless you've been living under a rock since the 1960's, I guess you've missed that little sign behind the cash register in nearly every eatery in America, the one that says "This Business Has the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone." And they do have that right. The SCOTUS said so long ago.
The can refuse service to anyone, but not for any reason.
Now why don't you think about how ludicrous and self-cancelling your post is. The whole point of the SCOTUS ruling was that a business is under no obligation to do business with anyone if they choose not to do business with someone. They don't need a stated reason. They can tell anyone to get the fuck off their premises anytime they want.
Unless it's for one of the reasons on the "protected classes" list (race, religion, sex, etc...). I agree that it's ludicrous. But that's the way it is.
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
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.
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
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? Such a new kind of discrimination
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign? Probably yes.
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
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 appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.
Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
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.
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
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? Such a new kind of discrimination
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign? Probably yes.
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
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 appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.
Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
The first amendment has nothing to do with businesses. It limits Congress, not the people.
I do. It would make me physically ill to have a tattooed person eating at the next table.Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
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.
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
... Snip...
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
Maybe it would make him physically ill to have YOU eating at the next table
Good reason to not serve him. The guy made a stupid choice in life, not everyone needs to cater to his stupidity.
mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,034
- 2,630
I do. It would make me physically ill to have a tattooed person eating at the next table.Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
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.
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
... Snip...
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
How dramatic.
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
Can't think of anything stupider than getting tattoo's on your face.
there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face
--LOL
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
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.
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
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? Such a new kind of discrimination
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign? Probably yes.
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
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 appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.
Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
Restaurant refuses service to man because of facial tattoos
I don't think it's appropriate to deny service to someone because of ink they may have on their body.
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? Such a new kind of discrimination
Or is it a consequence of that wave of morons from Mexico with face\neck tattoos as criminal sign? Probably yes.
The guy with the tats should just accept the fact that equal doesn't always mean equal.
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 appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.
Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.
You want stupidity to be a protected class?
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
This incident is no different than if a Jewish man wearing a yarmulka was asked to leave or remove it.
"1st Amendment guarantees my right to religious freedom, and freedom of expression. With all due respect Miss, go fuck yourself."
"1st Amendment guarantees my right to religious freedom, and freedom of expression. With all due respect Miss, go fuck yourself."
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.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 appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.
Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.
You want stupidity to be a protected class?
I do. Since compared to my IQ this would include the majority of the population.
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.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 appearence. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since hs shoulda known better.
Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.
You want stupidity to be a protected class?
A business sure can
are you sure about that
we have crossed a line some time back
in regards to individual freedoms
once the government can mandate that you buy a product
or face serious consequences for failing to do so
all bets are off
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.Bullshit. He wasn't born that way, he isn't physically handicapped, he chose to be stupid and tattoo his face. This is like choosing to put on bikini, and going into a high-end restaurant that has an attire policy.
The owner should be able to decide.
Now of course in America 2015 I wouldn't be the least surprised he would sue and win a lawsuit, but based purely on the law I can't see how the guy would have a leg to stand on. We already know he doesn't have brain to think with.
1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.
You want stupidity to be a protected class?
A business sure can
are you sure about that
we have crossed a line some time back
in regards to individual freedoms
once the government can mandate that you buy a product
or face serious consequences for failing to do so
all bets are off
1st Amendment freedom of expression is the beginning and end to this matter. Can wear dayglo neon shirt and pants, have pink dyed hair and facial piercings and not be asked to leave a restaurant just like you can have an unsightly facial tattoo or anything else.
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.1st Amendment freedom of expression assures the right of people to be stupid and tattoo their faces.
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.
You want stupidity to be a protected class?
A business sure can
are you sure about that
we have crossed a line some time back
in regards to individual freedoms
once the government can mandate that you buy a product
or face serious consequences for failing to do so
all bets are off
1st Amendment freedom of expression is the beginning and end to this matter. Can wear dayglo neon shirt and pants, have pink dyed hair and facial piercings and not be asked to leave a restaurant just like you can have an unsightly facial tattoo or anything else.
you are incorrect
many places have dress codes
And it allows others to make judgements about said people.
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.
You want stupidity to be a protected class?
A business sure can
are you sure about that
we have crossed a line some time back
in regards to individual freedoms
once the government can mandate that you buy a product
or face serious consequences for failing to do so
all bets are off
1st Amendment freedom of expression is the beginning and end to this matter. Can wear dayglo neon shirt and pants, have pink dyed hair and facial piercings and not be asked to leave a restaurant just like you can have an unsightly facial tattoo or anything else.
you are incorrect
many places have dress codes
Looks like this restaurant had a policy in place because of potential gang activity. It is the only restaurant in the chain that has the policy. No shoes, no shirt, no tats, no service.
Can't think of anything stupider than getting tattoo's on your face.
there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face
--LOL
Drummer of Kiss ?
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
Sure, to the point you're not allowed to discriminate based on those judgements.
A business sure can, it is not race, sex, religious.
You want stupidity to be a protected class?
A business sure can
are you sure about that
we have crossed a line some time back
in regards to individual freedoms
once the government can mandate that you buy a product
or face serious consequences for failing to do so
all bets are off
1st Amendment freedom of expression is the beginning and end to this matter. Can wear dayglo neon shirt and pants, have pink dyed hair and facial piercings and not be asked to leave a restaurant just like you can have an unsightly facial tattoo or anything else.
you are incorrect
many places have dress codes
Looks like this restaurant had a policy in place because of potential gang activity. It is the only restaurant in the chain that has the policy. No shoes, no shirt, no tats, no service.
many places have dress codes against gang activity
among them many public government schools
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,368
- 1,130
Can't think of anything stupider than getting tattoo's on your face.
there is a dude out here that has his face tatted like a cat face
--LOL
Drummer of Kiss ?
like a cat
paws on his hands as well
Similar threads
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 95
- Replies
- 44
- Views
- 974
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 316
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 36
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 322
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8061
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 470
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-