So a couple of the nightclubs near me have decided to adopt a no visible tattoo rule recently...in such a way that if you have a visible tat they will refuse you entry no matter how sober you are.
They claim that it is stopping problems arising inside and cutting the number of bikie related incident.
They way i see it they equate anyone that has a tattoo as automatically affiliated with bikies, is always angry and apparently just in looking for a fight and therefore refuse them entry.
This is blatant discrimination at it's finest.
Owners claim it is their right to enforce a dress-code...yes it is, however, we can change the way we dress...we can't change the way we look.
If they were refusing entry based on Gender, colour or sexual orientation there would be a huge backlash and lawsuits and all sorts.
So why is it considered "ok" to discriminate against people with visible tattoos? Are they less of people because they chose to express their individuality with ink in the form of tattoos... Some are to highlight a special moment in their lives such as a new born or death of a loved one... others are spiritual and express their heritage and yet they are refused to be allowed to enjoy themselves because of this.
Opinions?
[ B U R N :: the everything guild ]
The Everything Guild... For Everyone, Everywhere. Designed with you in mind, to help you make the very most out of your Gaia experience!
Reply | ||||||
|
|