Reading some of the comments at the original site is interesting.
Seems that some miss the point of the original author that having tattoos lessens one’s probability of being hired. This is a pragmatic or empiric observation.
They seemed to reason that the point was that it’s morally defensible to discriminate and not hire a tattooed applicant, or that the existence of one employed person with a tattoo overturns the author’s observation.
Kind of suggests to me a possible (weak) correlation of critical thinking issues with a predilection for defending one’ tattoos.
OK, I said weak! I didn’t mean you.
How long until some bleeding heart, feel-good liberal recommends that tattooed individuals become a protected class under ADA or Equal Opportunity acts? Gay - check, fat - check, felons - check, unemployed - check, why not tattooed? I smell a protected class in the making....