What are your thoughts on this particular case, Sconey (and others)?
In a perfect world, the tattoos -- or lack thereof -- would have no effect on one's projection by themselves (that is, tattoo=bad, no tattoo=good). However, people would definitely need to take responsibility for the contents (nothing offensive, no hate imagery, etc).
However, we don't live in a perfect world, and everyone is very aware of this -- including the connotation that tattoos (esp. face tattoos) have. Trying to break the stigma is fantastic; it should be done. But like with everything else, slowly, because to do so too fast is irresponsible as it's an unfortunate fact of life that you'll suffer for it. It's highly unlikely that he would have completely forwent all logic, even if he was inebriated at the time.
So, in summary: The tattoo stigma sucks, but he should be self-aware and have some responsibility (with other things too, like the lack of CV and his criminal record -- needs to recognise they're factors too). Props to the people that gave him a job despite the face tattoo though.
Edit: Just realised how utterly pretentious I sound saying 'forwent'
even if I may have used it wrong. Foregone...forwent...
gosh, linguistics