Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Lucia Tattoos should be covered

An Auckland caterer asked one of his employees to cover her tattooed arm while at a function last year. She complied with the request but now has the guy in court on charges of discrimination. Apparently, since the tattoo is "culturally sensitive", she was discriminated against for being asked to cover it.

The problem is, in Western society, tattoos are seen as crass. So we have cultural clash going on here. What if the tattoo had been on her butt? Would she still have been discriminated against if she'd been asked to cover it? The mind boggles.

Tattoos should be covered, especially in a formal catering situation. To feel discriminated against because you are asked to cover a tattoo is being culturally insensitive to the guests of the function. Unless they themselves are heavily tattooed, and I suppose then you would get away with it.

But to get that upset that you she takes her former employer to the Human Rights court and sues for emotional harm shows the woman to be a little unhinged, in my opinion.

Related link: Former boss to argue Moko discrimination case today ~ TVNZ

0 comment(s):

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.