NFL.COM News: Panthers owner likes Newton to be without tattoos, earrings

[RANSKINS98]

I'm guessing, if you have tattoos, that you don't have much experience on the job market for skilled labor.

Is that what you think? or implying thats how others feel? Because I am covered in tats and I work for a very respectable healthcare provider.

I disagree' date=' if I get a tattoo of a penis on my forehead I'm pretty sure I'll be excluded from most jobs. Employers should be allowed to have a say in physical appearance if the work is in the public eye.[/quote']

Huh be realistic. Employers can only implement dress code and piercings, aside from nudity, racial and religious tattoos; its discrimination to fire or not hire because of tattoos.

Whether you like it or not tattooed people are going to be doing the hiring and firing in the soon future .

[Conn]

It is NOT discrimination to not hire because of tattoos. Some jobs have very clear limitations on things like that, especially when it comes to tattoos on the lower arm.

[terpskins10]

Huh be realistic. Employers can only implement dress code and piercings, aside from nudity, racial and religious tattoos; its discrimination to fire or not hire because of tattoos.

Then companies discriminate every day. Whether it is right or not, tattoos are considered to be "unprofessional" and some companies shy away from hiring people with them. Your company sounds pretty good about it, but others aren't. I think it's a matter of personal choice.

Whether you like it or not tattooed people are going to be doing the hiring and firing in the soon future .

lolwhat

[RANSKINS98]

It is NOT discrimination to not hire because of tattoos. Some jobs have very clear limitations on things like that, especially when it comes to tattoos on the lower arm.

It is, my brother just won a law suit because he was fired for his tats.

lolwhat

Most of the population nowadays and especially the younger generation have tattoos, its going to be the majority one day.

[terpskins10]

Most of the population nowadays and especially the younger generation have tattoos, its going to be the majority one day.

That may be true but they can be people who have a small tattoo in a covered place, not full sleeves and neck tattoos.

[djbubba4life]

Panthers owner would prefer if Cam Newton kept his helmet on when nervously running around out of the pocket.

[Bubble Screen]

You draft a guy 1st overall, at QB, to be the face of your franchise both on the field AND off of it. That's just how it is. Image is a large part of that.

Glad someone gets it. That's EXACTLY the reasoning behind what Richardson asked of Cam.

And he is the owner. He has every right to ask that of him. With that said, I wouldn't have asked that of Cam. If I'm Richardson, I would be more concerned with the guy completing passes. He's displayed horrible accuracy thus far. And it comes as no surprise to me, as I told everyone that would listen that it would be a major issue.

[Destino]

It is, my brother just won a law suit because he was fired for his tats.

What was the basis for his lawsuit? Tattoos aren't protected.

Most of the population nowadays and especially the younger generation have tattoos, its going to be the majority one day.

If you can see them in business attire it's going to impact your career. That simple. Companies don't like anything that could create an image problem for them.

Tattoos just like clothing and hairstyle are a choice people make to communicate something about themselves to others that is not protected. Employers might want "professionalism" to be the first thing you want to communicate with your style.

[Bubble Screen]

Tattoos are just stupid. Especially in the business world. And businesses have every right to make you cover them up.

Personally, I wouldn't even hire someone with visible tattoos.

[Ghost of]

Whether folks like it or not, humans are a social creatures, and hence communicate not just verbally, but also non-verbally. In fact, non-verbal communication has been used exceptionally well for both good and ill purposes.

In the West, we used to regards extensive tattooing and piercing (other than women's ears) as the habits of the savage, without much faith, philosophy or civilization to occupy their time and mind. Now, the people who want to tell us about themselves via these ways want to tell us we can't assess their need for tats and how they look on what was once beautiful human skin.

I had an ex tell me that "I don't want want anyone telling me what to do" merely because I said I didn't like the idea of her getting a lip piercing, especially one with a hoop (kissing? hello?) Then we got into a discussion with someone else about tats and piercings and what they convey. But what is funny to me is in spite of the insistence on ABSOLUTE emancipation from any judgment by another person, they don't realize that much of their drive to get these mutilations and body defacing is based on the context of our society's historical disapproval of it.

There is a reason people like that Dwyane Wade and MJ didn't have tats. It also is fast becoming an indicator that one is unwilling to bend to the whims of the crowd, at least in certain regards.

I don't judge MORALLY, a person that has these things, but you are trying to say something about yourself. Just don't be mad if other people get the message.

[tiger187126]

Eh, whatever. But, Richardson wouldn't have passed him up if he had those things if he was really the guy he wanted. Don't get it twisted. This is a PR move. And a good one.

this is the correct answer. i do believed they just signed jeremy shockey as well.

this is, "hey i noticed you don't have any tattoos or piercings."

cam: "no sir, i don't really like them too much. my body is a temple."

richardson: "great we can make you our squeaky clean face of the franchise who won't offend anyone, just look at that smile"

cam: "but sir i'm not too good at throwing or reading defenses"

richardson: "psh, son it's not about winning or losing, we just need to sell some damn tickets!"

[terpskins10]

In the West, we used to regards extensive tattooing and piercing (other than women's ears) as the habits of the savage, without much faith, philosophy or civilization to occupy their time and mind. Now, the people who want to tell us about themselves via these ways want to tell us we can't assess their need for tats and how they look on what was once beautiful human skin.

I had an ex tell me that "I don't want want anyone telling me what to do" merely because I said I didn't like the idea of her getting a lip piercing, especially one with a hoop (kissing? hello?) Then we got into a discussion with someone else about tats and piercings and what they convey. But what is funny to me is in spite of the insistence on ABSOLUTE emancipation from any judgment by another person, they don't realize that much of their drive to get these mutilations and body defacing is based on the context of our society's historical disapproval of it.

There is a reason people like that Dwyane Wade and MJ didn't have tats. It also is fast becoming an indicator that one is unwilling to bend to the whims of the crowd, at least in certain regards.

I don't judge MORALLY, a person that has these things, but you are trying to say something about yourself. Just don't be mad if other people get the message.

You just dropped the mic on this thread. lol Agree completely on all points.

[tiger187126]

In the West, we used to regards extensive tattooing and piercing (other than women's ears) as the habits of the savage, without much faith, philosophy or civilization to occupy their time and mind. Now, the people who want to tell us about themselves via these ways want to tell us we can't assess their need for tats and how they look on what was once beautiful human skin.

I had an ex tell me that "I don't want want anyone telling me what to do" merely because I said I didn't like the idea of her getting a lip piercing, especially one with a hoop (kissing? hello?) Then we got into a discussion with someone else about tats and piercings and what they convey. But what is funny to me is in spite of the insistence on ABSOLUTE emancipation from any judgment by another person, they don't realize that much of their drive to get these mutilations and body defacing is based on the context of our society's historical disapproval of it.

There is a reason people like that Dwyane Wade and MJ didn't have tats. It also is fast becoming an indicator that one is unwilling to bend to the whims of the crowd, at least in certain regards.

I don't judge MORALLY, a person that has these things, but you are trying to say something about yourself. Just don't be mad if other people get the message.

it's all about conforming to non conformity.

[KDawg]

In the West, we used to regards extensive tattooing and piercing (other than women's ears) as the habits of the savage, without much faith, philosophy or civilization to occupy their time and mind. Now, the people who want to tell us about themselves via these ways want to tell us we can't assess their need for tats and how they look on what was once beautiful human skin.

I had an ex tell me that "I don't want want anyone telling me what to do" merely because I said I didn't like the idea of her getting a lip piercing, especially one with a hoop (kissing? hello?) Then we got into a discussion with someone else about tats and piercings and what they convey. But what is funny to me is in spite of the insistence on ABSOLUTE emancipation from any judgment by another person, they don't realize that much of their drive to get these mutilations and body defacing is based on the context of our society's historical disapproval of it.

There is a reason people like that Dwyane Wade and MJ didn't have tats. It also is fast becoming an indicator that one is unwilling to bend to the whims of the crowd, at least in certain regards.

I don't judge MORALLY, a person that has these things, but you are trying to say something about yourself. Just don't be mad if other people get the message.

You are judging.

But, to each their own.

It's amazing how many people who don't judge, judge, though..

[Bubble Screen]

To the ones bringing up Shockey. Richardson DID express to Shockey that he didn't like them. But in Shockey's case, he already has them. Nothing Jerry can do. Besides, Shockey wasn't just signed by the Panthers as the #1 pick in the draft. And he's not the face of the franchise. So bringing him into the equation is pretty silly.

It makes perfect sense why Richardson doesn't want Cam to have tats or piercings. But as I said earlier in this thread, I probably wouldn't have went there if I were him.

[Ghost of]

In the West, we used to regards extensive tattooing and piercing (other than women's ears) as the habits of the savage.

insistence on ABSOLUTE emancipation from any judgment by another person

I don't judge MORALLY, a person that has these things, but you are trying to say something about yourself. Just don't be mad if other people get the message.

KDawg,

Perhaps your previous regard for me prompted a response aimed at something you felt, rather than what I posted. As you see from the underlined last line I'm quoting, I'm speaking of the moral sense. If I have a friend who is frequently late, I may not be happy about it, I may think it is a character deficiency (a deviation from the 'ideal') but I'm not really judging their morals. Meaning, people are going to have flaws, even things that indicate negative aspects of their character. It does not mean we judge them as lesser human beings or deem them degenerates or immoral actors.

It simply means we process the information they are providing us, assess it and make decisions (even if just internal opinions) based on those actions or traits.

You'll also note the use of "extensive." I think everyone is willing to let that one memorial tattoo pass or an unobtrusive nose piercing (esp on a woman) pass without thought.

I look upon someone like Dennis Rodman, covered with tats and piercings and dying his hair as the exemplar of the psychological dysfunction at the heart of people who will make themselves look absurd to get attention, because that attention is some sort of (paltry) salve for their psychic wounds or personality disorders.

The ex I mentioned had severe issues with depression, a previously abusive marriage, etc. I think marking her body was an extension of her problems to her external physical appearance, not an emblem (as she thought,) of her taking control of her life. Maybe the pain associated is some form of masochism or a poor substitute for catharsis.

Considering the amount of people I've talked to that got tats on a whim, it may also indicate something to do with a need for immediate gratification or a high derived from a temporary act that results in a permanency.

Can you imagine a world where no one commented or pointed out a person's tattoos EVER?

Oh, another thing. Pirates and criminals (Russian mob, Yakuza) get them to intimidate, to close themselves off/distinguish themselves from the 'respectable circles' but I posit that it's not dissimilar to slave branding/tattooing. It's a way of permanently marking the person as 'less-than-free' in case they had ideas of simply changing place or social conditions as a way of escaping that life. Ultimately, people obsessed with it seem to me, slaves to their internal psychic conflicts.

[KDawg]

KDawg,

Perhaps your previous regard for me prompted a response aimed at something you felt, rather than what I posted. As you see from the underlined last line I'm quoting, I'm speaking of the moral sense. If I have a friend who is frequently late, I may not be happy about it, I may think it is a character deficiency (a deviation from the 'ideal') but I'm not really judging their morals. Meaning, people are going to have flaws, even things that indicate negative aspects of their character. It does not mean we judge them as lesser human beings or deem them degenerates or immoral actors.

Tattoos are a character deficiency? Okay. I think people who don't like tattoos have a character deficiency. See how dumb that sounds? And no, I don't actually feel that way. I think there is such a thing as overboard with tattoos, but hey, whatever floats your boat. It's not my life, I'm not concerned with how you live yours unless your actions can potentially harm me or my loved ones.

It simply means we process the information they are providing us, assess it and make decisions (even if just internal opinions) based on those actions or traits.

And your assumption could very likely be totally false.

You'll also note the use of "extensive." I think everyone is willing to let that one memorial tattoo pass or an unobtrusive nose piercing (esp on a woman) pass without thought.

But what qualifies as extensive, and who are you to judge them? I'd say facial tattoos and sleeves may be extensive for my taste, but some people love the art work that's on them, and who am I to judge them for that choice?

I look upon someone like Dennis Rodman, covered with tats and piercings and dying his hair as the exemplar of the psychological dysfunction at the heart of people who will make themselves look absurd to get attention, because that attention is some sort of (paltry) salve for their psychic wounds or personality disorders.

Not everyone with tattoos is Dennis Rodman Talk about a generalization.

The ex I mentioned had severe issues with depression, a previously abusive marriage, etc. I think marking her body was an extension of her problems to her external physical appearance, not an emblem (as she thought,) of her taking control of her life. Maybe the pain associated is some form of masochism or a poor substitute for catharsis.

So one person with emotional problems who gets a tattoo/piercing/whatever made you form an opinion on anyone with a tattoo? Alrighty then. I went to a store once. The cashier double charged me for gum. I didn't catch it until I got home. But obviously that ***** just wanted to take that extra dollar home because she wanted to spend it on coke. I now hate all cashiers.

Considering the amount of people I've talked to that got tats on a whim, it may also indicate something to do with a need for immediate gratification or a high derived from a temporary act that results in a permanency.

So are the clothes you wear, or the hairstyle you have, or the women you want to take home. You say you're not judging, but you are, both morally and any other way. You don't want any tattoos, I respect that. To each their own. But you are not in any kind of position to tell people what right and wrong is when it comes to what they do to themselves unless they're hurting you or someone you're close to.

Oh, another thing. Pirates and criminals (Russian mob, Yakuza) get them to intimidate, to close themselves off/distinguish themselves from the 'respectable circles' but I posit that it's not dissimilar to slave branding/tattooing. It's a way of permanently marking the person as 'less-than-free' in case they had ideas of simply changing place or social conditions as a way of escaping that life. Ultimately, people obsessed with it seem to me, slaves to their internal psychic conflicts.

I like you, Ghost. I really do. But you're so off base and out of the loop on this issue that it's ridiculous. Do all people that own guns do it for evil purposes?

I would argue that drug use is more indicative of the things you list, and that includes alcohol. But again, what you do is your own business. Just don't hurt the people I know and love while doing it and I couldn't care less what your choices are.

[HailToTheRedskins14]

Is that what you think? or implying thats how others feel? Because I am covered in tats and I work for a very respectable healthcare provider.

Huh be realistic. Employers can only implement dress code and piercings, aside from nudity, racial and religious tattoos; its discrimination to fire or not hire because of tattoos.

So as long as it fits under your definition of "acceptable", its okay? And you consider nudity equal to religious tattoos? So a cross is as bas as the aforementioned penis on the forehead? What is acceptable and what isn't?

And yes, it is considered discrimination in the overly PC world today to hire/fire based on tattoos, but if someone owns a company it should be their choice. Like it or not, if the person doing the hiring thinks it will affect business, there's probably at least one customer who it would affect.