Top Arizona court rules tattooing is protected speech

[Jaron]

I don't see it as a problem for businesses or HR.

There are plenty of examples of free speech that aren't illegal, but still inappropriate for a work situation. And hiring managers are under no obligation to hire people with tattoos - free speech carries a pricetag, ironically. A lot of people commit crimes that, while their debt to society is paid, makes them undesirable in many professions. The company I work for doesn't hire _anyone_ with criminal histories. That is not to say that getting a tattoo and being a criminal are the same, or that committing crimes is free speech, but companies do have a wide berth in who they do and do not hire. A company that requires suits and a tie is not going to take flak for firing someone who refuses to wear anything but a t-shirt and jeans to work. Crafting a company image is also a form of free speech.

[Malthus]

You missed an important paragraph at the end Mart.

The ruling does not mean that Mesa must allow the Colemans to open their tattoo parlor, only that the court erred in dismissing their suit. It noted that cities had the right to regulate business location through zoning ordinances and that the "factual dispute" between the parties would have to be determined at trial.

The issue is that the error of law allegedly committed by the lower court does not appear to have any bearing on the dispute. Whether or not tattooing is protected speech has, as far as I can see, nothing whatsoever to do with whether the lawsuit against the council for making a zoning decision denying the applicants the right to set up their business should go ahead.

As in, tattooing may (or may not) be protected speech but a lawsuit alleging that the council ought to be liable for refusing its permission *still* appears to lack any merit.

[dps]

You missed an important paragraph at the end Mart.

The ruling does not mean that Mesa must allow the Colemans to open their tattoo parlor, only that the court erred in dismissing their suit. It noted that cities had the right to regulate business location through zoning ordinances and that the "factual dispute" between the parties would have to be determined at trial.

The issue is that the error of law allegedly committed by the lower court does not appear to have any bearing on the dispute. Whether or not tattooing is protected speech has, as far as I can see, nothing whatsoever to do with whether the lawsuit against the council for making a zoning decision denying the applicants the right to set up their business should go ahead.

As in, tattooing may (or may not) be protected speech but a lawsuit alleging that the council ought to be liable for refusing its permission *still* appears to lack any merit.

Yeah, I don't see the connection between the free speech issue and the zoning issue.  In fact, I don't see where the free speech issue comes in at all.

Now, if the city tried to set zoning laws so that tattoo parlors couldn't be opened anywhere inside city limits--well, then I could see a possible equal protection issue, but still no free speech issue.  It's not like the city criminalized having a tattoo.