Imagine you go to the Dentist for your bi-annual cleaning, you check in with the receptionist and take a seat. A little while later, your hygienist calls you back. You get a bit of an uneasy feeling because the hygienist has full sleeve tattoos and their earlobes are sagging. You start to feel grossed out and and you wonder why would anyone do that to themselves. Then you start to feel bad for judging them. But, then you remember that they made that decision to get that tattoo therefore, they are putting themselves up for judgment, so you don’t feel bad. Like everything, tattoos and piercings are okay in moderation. But, in excesses they become unprofessional and abrasive.

Although more and more Americans are getting tattoos, there is still a point where you can be excessive and unprofessional. According to The Harris Poll three in ten U.S. adults have a tattoo, and nearly half of the Millennial Generation has a tattoo.

Having a tattoo is not an inherently bad thing, I agree that they don’t make you a bad person. Tattoos are just an autonomous decision, a condition you are not born with. Therefore, I believe you shouldn’t feel wronged when an employer, or anyone else, judges you on your tattoos.

A company or organization goes through a lot of time and trouble to choose the image they desire. Let’s go back to the medical office example. A medical office, in order to be successful, must be and look sterile, if an employer believes that tattoos might hurt their prospects of being successful or making their patients comfortable they should be able not to hire that individual. However, like I mentioned before, this is only because the tattoos are decisions. Conditions that you are born with should not be judged.

I believe the status quo has the perfect amount of legislation, no additional anti-discrimination laws are needed. In 2006, the 6th District Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Robert v. Ward that employers can make decisions based on the employee’s tattoos as long as  “handled in an equitable fashion.” For instance, if a person has a tattoo for church mandated reasons, they may not be able to be fired for their ink, as seen in the case of a former restaurant server who had a tattoo that was part of his religious obligation. He was fired by his employer for violating their policy that prohibited servers from having visible tattoos. The server took them to court, citing it as a violation of his rights, and won $150,000 for wrongful termination. Further legislation would be frivolous and would take rights away from the employer, even though the individual was fully compliant and made the decision to get the tattoo.

Because some individuals did not think of the possible repercussions of getting a tattoo, they should not be rewarded with getting the job they want, in spite of what the employer may believe. If one is not forced to deal with the repercussions of their actions, we then give them the sense of entitlement. So it just may be a tattoo now, but if we don’t allow companies to control their image, it will lead to bigger problems with both the individual and the company.