Adult Brats Who Think They Should Be Allowed To Force A Tattoo Artist To Do Their Bidding
It's amazing that this is even an issue. (And yes, it mirrors that of the cake makers who are -- unfortunately, often by law -- forced to make a cake for people they don't want to for some reason. PS I'm an atheist and for gay marriage, but I support religious freedom -- even when I think a person's beliefs are silly.)
Anna Codrea-Rado writes for The Guardian on whether tattoo artists are "right" to refuse to tattoo necks and hands.
Short answer: Yes.
Slightly less short answer: Absofuckinglutely.
Excerpt from her piece:
Andrew Timming, a management professor at the University of St Andrews, says that 40% of US households have a least one member with a tattoo. Timming cautions, however, that despite this rise in popularity, visible tattoos may still be an employment hindrance. Timming has studied the perceptions of recruiters towards visible tattoos and found that they are less likely to secure employment, especially in customer-facing jobs.Timming thinks tattoo artists should be able to refuse clients' tattoo requests. "Tattoo artists are professionals - they need to be able to make decisions," he says. "Sometimes they make decisions for personal reasons, sometimes they make decisions because they think it's in the best interest of the client. But you can't take away that right."
Leaf Chang, owner of Brooklyn's Gnostic Tattoo shop, also thinks its for the tattoo artist to make a call whether or not to tattoo. "I definitely do not think the client should expect to get whatever they want in a tattoo shop, just like you wouldn't go to the tailor and presume to tell them how to cut your suit," he says.
Chang says he assesses hand and neck tattoo requests on a case-by-case basis. He says it's the artist's prerogative to not tattoo something they're not comfortable with, because their reputation is on the line. "Our name is attached to our work," he says. "So we have just as much of a stake in your tattoo as you do."
Marcus says that while he may not agree with every tattoo idea, it's his job to educate them about the implications of their decision. "I try to let people see all angles of their decision" he says. "If they still want to go ahead and do it after that, for me that's where my responsibility ends."
Truly, amazing that this is even a question -- the notion (absurd and the stuff of people who are clueless about civil liberties and natural rights) that you might be able to or "should" be able to force an artist to do art work they are opposed to.
More of the same - the Five Cake Test, as administered by Cridmo.
So many are eager to make people do things by calling the law - and they never seem to have the working brain cell that says the same law will be used against THEM.
Radwaste at August 9, 2015 12:43 PM
I have a question about this. Maybe Isab knows.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that the courts have already ruled that tattoo artists have the right to refuse tattoos.
Someone goes into a tattoo shop and wants a tattoo placed on their neck, a visible tattoo. The tattoo artist, believing that the customer can do whatever the hell they want, agrees to do the tattoo.
Then the customer goes out and applies for a high-paying executive-level job, for which she has all the prerequisite skills. But she's not offered the job.
Deciding that the tattoo was the reason she was rebuffed for the job that she believes she otherwise qualified for, could she go back and sue the tattoo artist, claiming that the tattoo artist should have known that executive-level employers take a dim view of visible tattoos and should have warned her against getting a visible tattoo?
I know what a lot of you would be thinking, because it's the same thing I'm thinking. She should be responsible for her own stupidity, not blame it on the tattoo artist who only did what she asked. But we all know that's not how the world works these days. Everyone else is our nanny and has to be legally responsible for our bad decisions.
If the tattoo artist could be sued under those circumstances, then it seems to that it's safer to have a tattoo artist not be able to refuse any job, because then responsibility falls on the customer, not the tattoo artist.
(For the record, I support the right of tattoo artists and cake-bakers to refuse jobs. I'm just introducing a hypothetical to see what folks think would happen.)
Patrick at August 9, 2015 2:56 PM
Patrick; it wouldn't even have to be a financial loss as your hypothetical; just "regret" will do.
Someone could have sex with someone in a one-night-stand; have regrets the next morning and cry "rape"!
Oh wait, sorry, we were talking about tattoos.
No, no need to stop my thought - someone will regret, just like the bimbo* who claims rape after a drunken one-night-stand, and accuse the tattoo artist of not understanding that Yes means No.
Actually, I never thought about it before since I have no tattoos and wouldn't even considering getting one; but, I rather like that one tattoo studio's policy of no neck tattoo for someone with no other tattoos. It makes sense to me. I have a friend who has a lot of tattoos and he did say that his neck tattoo was only after he had the others on his arms and legs for a few years before he "ventured" so far as to get that one. And while it is a cool-looking tattoo, along the back of his neck, a long rifle which turns into a flower, he did make sure that it could be covered up by a dress-shirt's collar.
Oh, can I continue hypotheticals further? Can I sue a doctor for not giving me the drugs I requested?
* does calling someone a "bimbo" make me a Donald Trump wannabe?
charles at August 9, 2015 7:54 PM
Charles, thanks for your response. I enjoyed the cynicism, even as I admitted that it was probably justified.
Calling someone a bimbo makes you into a Donald Trump wannabe in the same way that doing a cannonball into a swimming pool makes you into Greg Louganis.
Patrick at August 10, 2015 2:26 AM
cake makers who are -- unfortunately, often by law -- forced to make a cake for people they don't want to for some reason
As the meme goes: Go ahead, eat the cake. I dare you.
Patrick, as far as your hypothetical goes, I would say that there's a 50/50 shot at a successful suit against said artist, if you're able to find the right jury, especially if the plaintiff is a woman.
Apparently, women now-a-days are special little snowflakes that can't properly consent to, well, anything and the evil money grubbing "artist" should have known better.
And we still let them vote?
I R A Darth Aggie at August 10, 2015 6:33 AM
"Calling someone a bimbo makes you into a Donald Trump wannabe in the same way that doing a cannonball into a swimming pool makes you into Greg Louganis."
Nominate for Quote of the Day.
To Patrick's previous hypothetical, and where (I suspect) he was going with it:
I don't see any difference, in conscience or in law, between a cake-baker who declines to decorate a cake in ways he does not wish to and a tattoo artist who declines to decorate a person's skin in ways she does not wish to. If you can punish the cake baker for his refusal, you can punish a tattoo artist for her refusal.
llater,
llamas
llamas at August 10, 2015 6:34 AM
Can they sue, sure. You don't need much to sue someone. The real question is will they prevail in court or will the suit be costly enough to put the artist out of business before a ruling.
Ben at August 10, 2015 6:38 AM
It's very important to keep in mind what happened to the cake-decorators in the two most-recent cake-baking disputes.
They were NOT sued civilly by the poor precious snowflakes that they refused to decorate a cake for.
Instead, the PPS each complained to a state 'anti-discrimination' agency, who pursued the cake decorators - criminally.
Criminally. Just let that sink in for a minute. Criminally.
In one case, refusing to decorate and sell a cake was judged to be such a heinous act, such a terrible assault on the peace and liberty of the state, that the errant bakers were assessed a criminal penalty of $135,000.
One Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand Dollars. Over a $50 cake.
That's the worm in the apple here. If the PPS's had sued in civil court, if a cause of action was even capable of being defined, they would have to be able to persuade a judge and/or jury that they had suffered an actual, quantifiable loss. And "they wouldn't sell me what I wanted" has very little value.
But instead, they turned to the state to enforce their desires upon others, via a legislative and administrative law process that makes what was done to them,, not a civil tort, but a crime.
And we go along with this, in the name of 'equality' and 'non-discrimination'. And we allow the bureaucrats who run this process to pluck out of thin air fines and punishments that are so far out of proportion to any possible conception of actual loss or harm, that it shocks the conscience.
Nobody was hurt. Nobody suffered so much as a pinprick of pain or a moment's discomfort. The only thing that was impacted was their precious little feelings. Nasty people won't do exacky what we want! And this laughable, momentary pinprick of mental discomfort was judged to be worth $135K. It's insane.
Back on point - I can quite well see where the same process could be applied to a tattoo artist who refuses to apply a tattoo to wherever some self-absorbed clown demands it be applied.
llater,
llamas
llamas at August 10, 2015 8:41 AM
I don't think this is directly comparable to the cake bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings. One refused to do something because it was against his or her religious beliefs, the other because he had reason to believe the customer would come to regret the decision.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the tattooing is being called a civil rights issue (everything seems to be one these days).
Like the cake bakers, the tattoo artists are arguing that what they do is "art" and, therefore, the decision to create the "art" is up to them and them alone.
I've never been tattooed so I have no personal input into whether a tattoo is art. It seems to me that if you're picking the design to be replicated out of a catalog, it's less "art" than it is copying (cake or tattoo).
Nonetheless there does seem to be some artistic skill involved and the person doing the artistic work should have the right to refuse to do the work if it conflicts with his/her religious or moral beliefs or there is strong reason to believe the customer will regret the decision. Even if someone is offended by that refusal.
We have to have room in our discourse to disagree; and even sometimes for someone to be a jerk. That's what a free society is.
Only if you said she was a "yoooge" bimbo and if you then went on and on about how great you are.
Oh, and if you have a mange-ridden mammal living on your head.
Conan the Grammarian at August 10, 2015 10:56 AM
Well, you know... if you think tattooing isn't an art, you can get the catalog and do it yourself.
Try it with a pen first. Like a Sharpie. Lemme know how good that looks.
Radwaste at August 10, 2015 12:10 PM
It would look terrible. I can't draw anything but stick figures and even those are lopsided.
You'll notice I did concede that there is some artistic skill involved in tattooing (and cake decorating). It's in calling them "art" where I questioned things.
I have a lot admiration for those who can see an image and reproduce it perfectly. I can't.
I had a friend who could learn music by ear. It was pretty impressive when he broke out an impromptu guitar rendition of "O Holy Night" one Christmas.
Conan the Grammarian at August 10, 2015 12:51 PM
"Calling someone a bimbo makes you into a Donald Trump wannabe in the same way that doing a cannonball into a swimming pool makes you into Greg Louganis."
Thank you Patrick - I do NOT want to be the Donald; I'd look terrible with a comb-over.
charles at August 10, 2015 7:54 PM
Can they sue, sure. You don't need much to sue someone. The real question is will they prevail in court or will the suit be costly enough to put the artist out of business before a ruling.
Posted by: Ben at August 10, 2015 6:38 AM
Yep, Ben has the gist of it.
In my state, a suit like this would probably get laughed out of court.
In California, I am not so sure.
The irony is that the law has become so convoluted that you can get sued for not doing something, as easily as you can get sued for doing something wrong.
Law suits against OB/GYNs made liability insurance so expensive in some places, that doctors refused to handle high risk pregnancies, or in some cases, deliver babies at all.
Isab at August 10, 2015 9:54 PM
Wait, isn't an OBGyn who doesn't deliver babies a bit like a dentist who doesn't fix cavities?
NicoleK at August 11, 2015 10:43 PM
When I lived in Florida several years ago, that was reported to be a developing issue in the state. Some people reported having to drive to Georgia to find an OB/GYN that would deliver their baby.
Conan the Grammarian at August 12, 2015 8:51 AM
I asked a tattoo artist to tattoo a cake on my back that said "I support gay marriage". Since he is a Vegan, he refused. I sued and was awarded thirty goats. Does that count?
Rod Norman
Rod Norman at August 13, 2015 7:39 PM
Leave a comment