A young girl I've known for over 10 years related a story about one of her girlfriends that occurred last summer. Her friend has a "sleeve of tattoos" on both arms. I didn't know what a "sleeve of tats" was and she told me it was an arm that is covered with tattoos that runs from a person's shoulder down to their wrist.

It seems her friend was walking around City Creek, sleeveless, when she was confronted by City Creek "Tattoo Patrol." She was told to either put on her jacket, that she had wrapped around her waist, or she had to leave the premises. It was fairly hot by that time of day and wearing a jacket would have added to the discomfort of the summer heat. So, she decided to leave.

I'm just curious. Is this a situation unique to Utah or are there other places in the U.S. that requires people to leave the premises for this sort of thing?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2013 12:09PM by heretic.

Ahh and another story unfolds!

"Is this a situation unique to Utah or are there other places in the U.S. that requires people to leave the premises for this sort of thing?"

Yeah, in another country!!!!(Or possibly another life time...)

I have a dream
I dream of relaxing in the beautiful mall as provided to me by the church
I dream of being asked to leave because of my tattoos at 59 years old.
I dream of doing it repeatedly and saying I am hungry
Day after day
I dream of a court of love to chastise me for looking homeless in their mall
I dream good dreams

Too bad I am in Wa state or I would surely Rock the Boat ....

Stuff like this happens in Saudi Arabia all the time.

forbiddencokedrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stuff like this happens in Saudi Arabia all the
> time.

And Tehran ...

Oh, wait. In Tehran and Saudi Arabia, the tattoos would be covered by chadors. ;->

Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/344710

City Creek (I had to look it up) is a shopping center. That means that they have hung out their shingle to do business with the public, and they cannot discriminate against the public. They can make health-related rules like "no shirt/no shoes/no service," but it someone is not creating a health violation (and having tattoos is not a health violation) they are in violation of the law. Their code of conduct, which does include a paragraph about attire that pretty much conforms to what I said above, says not one thing about tattoos.

Again, they are in violation of the law. I hope that your friend got the security guard's name and filed a report.

Fiona, please tell me which law or laws City Creek violated by asking this person to leave. Please provide a proper citation to the city, county, state, and/or federal statutes that you think City Creek violated.

I already linked to the Utah state law. I'm not going to do it again.

City Creek is LDS church owned and on LDS property. Does that affect how the law is applied? Can they simply claim "private property" and retain the right to kick out anyone they choose for any reason?

Not really, no. Why? Because of this: http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE13/htm/13_07_000300.htm

A business establishment cannot discriminate, per UT law. A shopping mall is not a religious establishment (the which have exceptions).

It's a common misconception that businesses are private property, so the owner can discriminate against whomever they want. That's simply not true. If they are open to the public (which all business are, or how would they have any customers?), then they are a public place, and can't discriminate.

You can keep a black guy out of your house just because he's black, because your house is private property. You can't keep a black guy out of your restaurant (or your mall!) just because he's black, because that's against the law. It doesn't matter who owns the restaurant or mall, it's a public place.

Exactly. Businesses are considered public accommodations.

fiona64-You have not heard of the big and spacious building the church built? Where have you been!! :)

luvcake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fiona64-You have not heard of the big and spacious
> building the church built? Where have you been!!
> :)


I don't live in Utah; I miss all of the "important" news, LOL.

You've got to be kidding me. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The mall is private property. So they can and do control who enters. There is a sign at each entrance mentioning they retain the right to expel those who don't meet the vague standards of the property owners.

Yes, it's pretty ridiculous, but legal.

Slavery used to be legal too.

Legal / illegal doesn't infer right / wrong.

Speaking of legal, how did the church coopt what was public domain? (A public use street.)

dogblogger's point was that it was legal and he/she did call it it ridiculous so what are u barking up dogblogger's tree for?

The street was built on LDS owned property. The Church allows the public to use it as a street, but last time I checked, they still held the property rights to the area. It would be like you owning a house with a large lawn and telling the neighborhood kids they can play on your lawn, but it's still your lawn.

That's a violation of the UT law that I just cited. Business establishments cannot discriminate. They have a right to have safety/health regulations about wearing shoes and the like, but they cannot just randomly kick people out for having tattoos.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no lawyer and don't know a lot about legal issues. But I did read the UT law that you cited about businesses not being able to discriminate. And I don't think people with tattoos were included in the protected classes. I think this is how they can legally kick them out.

They can't discriminate

"on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, ancestry or national origin"

It doesn't say anything about clothing, piercings, tattoos, etc.

You cannot put someone out of a mall because you disapprove of their personal appearance. Period. The only possible violations in that regard are health and safety (e.g., shoes, as previously cited). I read the article linked in this thread that talked about TSCC saying they did not have policies at the mall that required kicking out people for tattoos. This is clearly an overzealous rent-a-cop situation, and that individual should be reported for violation of equal accomodation laws.

Businesses are considered public accommodations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2013 06:29PM by fiona64.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/13/utah-mall-accused-of-kicking-out-customers-for-looking-too-gay-having-visible-tattoos/

These types of things happened as soon as city creek opened

This makes me want to dress up real nice. Put on my best jewelry, have a nice manicure and wear a dress that has a bright green leafy panel sewn into the front of it. I could make it with the cut out leaf edge and a bow on the side. The rest of the dress would be white.

Do you think a 60 year old white haired lady would get thrown out for wearing a pretty dress like that?

Do it! Do it! Wear the veil too!

I will never visit the City Creek Mall, unless it is to deliberately provoke them. Perhaps a T-shirt with "JOSEPH'S MYTH" prominently printed.

See it's stuff like this that is the reason there is a bumper sticker that says "Jesus is coming and MAN, is he pissed."

So according to the ABC Channel 4 story, this isn't happening at all? Are we being punked or does it really happen? This is the skeptic coming out in me here. I'd love to hear first-hand from someone who's really been kicked out!

Here's what we should do: Go there as a group, some exposing tattoos, some same-gender hand holding, some women in belly shirts, a crossdresser or two. I say put it to the test. I get to go in drag!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2013 04:08PM by rationalguy.

From a UK perspective. Utah and its fanatical Mormon thoecratic government is viewed as just plain crazy and ultra dangerous for normal human society to co-exist. Period!

I googled "Lookism and the Law"

try it
very interesting

black equals race discrimination

not looks

Do some RESEARCH!!!!

No research eh Fiona?
I will help a very little :http://www.policymic.com/articles/2260/lookism-should-we-ban-discrimination-based-on-bad-looks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2013 06:31PM by mindlight.

It's really not my fault you didn't look at the link I provided to Utah law. Businesses (like malls) are public accommodations and cannot discriminate.

Does not sound like a good business move.

I do think that if a tattooed person was in there dropping a whole lot of money, it would have been overlooked.

Money trumps everything to LDS Inc.

However, it sounds like this person was prolly just wandering around so appearances trump in the meantime.

One would think they would want as many customers as possible.

"Lets go shopping!"

Pick a nice hot summer day. Send in a group with tattoos and same sex people holding hands. Video tape what happens and put it on you tube!