HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Racism? Anti-tattoo-ism? Or just enforcing the dress code?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. For once I did a search before responding.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-12035...

    notes that tank tops were specifically banned. And that was as of 7 August, 2004.

    Now if he was breast feeding, he would have gotten a pass.

    1 Reply
    1. re: INDIANRIVERFL

      That's because breast feeding is necessary, as you well know. Sheesh.

    2. The manager should have said "sorry, no tank tops" and stopped there.

      8 Replies
        1. re: Veggo

          Agreed, however it's only alleged he made comments about his tat's. Based on Indianriverfl it seems as if this has been a well established corporate policy, and not an unusual one, so I'm not sure what would compel a manager to take it beyond "It's our policy".

          1. re: jrvedivici

            I find it hard to believe that a manager would say anything other than the dress code policy. But I wasn't there.

            1. re: Firegoat

              If indeed the manager made it about the tats, it was a stupid move. The Game has extensive ink on his forearms, neck, and face that wouldn't have been covered even if he slipped on a polo shirt. If management is taking that route, it's a slippery slope. Let them ban ankle tattoos on all the ladies, too.

              Would Jesse James (of Monster Garage, not of outlaw fame) in a tank top have been thrown out for his ink? Hope so.

              1. re: pinehurst

                Again, the part about the tat's is being told by the Game in his tweet. Let's be honest, this is the most "press" he's gotten in a few years. It only plays favorably for him by insisting that was the reason. I find it very suspect.

                1. re: jrvedivici

                  I completely agree with you jrvedivici. Tats are very mainstream and common on even your highest high end clients. I can't buy his story. I do buy that he needed a shirt with sleeves.

                  1. re: Firegoat

                    And how sad that they are "mainstream."

          2. re: Veggo

            Yes, and perhaps offered him a loaner cardigan.

          3. What I don't get is: What do tattoos have to do with racism? Your race is not a choice. Tattooing is.

            1 Reply
            1. re: jmckee

              Sigh. The issue is whether the manager would have found a white guy who was heavily tattooed to be "scaring the other customers."

            2. Are tattoos even scary anymore? Besides, this place has a well established history of having a specific dress code.

              1. There's likely no law barring discrimination against tattoos.

                So you would need to try to make a case based on another basis like race or gender.

                Other than that, it a business decision.

                1 Reply
                1. re: C. Hamster

                  There might not be any law against them, but I've seen my share that should be illegal!