Some SA Apartments Banning Tattoos
 

San Antonio? Nope, do not want.

Jesus, how much business are they prepared to lose?

Unless of course they are in a very conservative neighbourhood I guess.

I heard about this. I sure wouldn't want to live there.

don't qualify either, of course.

I would be too Cloud.

They're a private business, and they're obviously targetting a particular market (the non-tattooed-non-pierced market!:p ). If the market isn't there, they'll have to change their business plan. If it is, what's the problem?

Someone else could try the concept of a tattoos-and-piercings-only building!

People with tattoos don't discriminate against people without them (as a rule)

The issue isn't discrimination (in the legal sense). It's a private business tailoring its product to a certain market.

Landlords may refuse to permit pets in their units. Is this discrimination against pet owners?

Yes it is... but it's also legal.

Well some pet owners would say so, however, I think there's a slight difference here.

For one thing, tattoos are found on people from all walks of life, and they don't generally cause any harm to anyone else (the tattos I mean).

This is a thinly veiled attempt to say, 'we think people with tattoos are unsavory and we don't want them in our building because they're likely to wreck the place'. Admittedly there was a time when tattoos were the hallmark of bikees (not bikers) etc and in that regard, it would probably be silly to disregard a group of people who are notoriously violent and likely to be involved in illegal activities. This however, is not the case anymore.

Who would like to bet that soon enough, someone will want to move in there, but they've got a tattoo which they'll spend a lot of time and effort covering up, or maybe it's one that isn't anywhere anyone would likely see. I wonder what sort of controversy the landlords will have to deal with then.

I don't buy the tailoring the product to a certain market. That's just a cover.

I wonder how it works exactly. What if they don't see your tattoos and/or piercings when you sign the lease? What if you get tattoos/piercings while living in one of their buildings?

hope they have a happy little community of plainskins there.

The next thing they'll say is that women can only have long hair, and men can only have short hair. Children must have bangs and...and...and...what about if they're allowed pets? Does that mean that only pets without tattoos can live there? (over here if you get your animal micro chipped they put a little tattoo in the ear. I don't know if it's the same there or not)

i've got tattoos so i wouldn't qualify to live there, but it is their business. my tattoos aren't a condition i was born with or came down with, they are something i chose to add to my skin. if someone doesn't want to do business with me because i have them, that is cool, it is there choice.

chances are this is their way of making sure that no hood rats move in. i'm sure they realize that plenty of fine upstanding americans have tattoos and piercings that aren't easily visible when clothed.

If they can screen their tenants for appearance, that's awfully close to screening them for the color of their skin (natural color) or the shape of their eyes.

It rubs me the wrong way, because I see so much regimentation in housing. I argue with my boss all the time on this, 'cause we do a lot of restrictive covenants for real estate. So, if you are a subdivider, you can specify the materials and color of the exterior of the house, no satellite dishes or motor homes parked in the yards, etc. It's all so creepy a la Stepford to me. My boss's argument is, well, if you don't have these things, pretty soon there's old couches and cars up on blocks in the yard. And probably naked brown babies, too, 'tho he doesn't say that expressly.

Bah! I just don't like to be told how to live.

Tattoos aren't found on people (like some sort of birthmark); they're a choice.

Visible tattoos and multiple piercings do tend to be over-represented among populations who are likely to be involved in violence or illegal activities; ask any police officer or ER doctor. It's too bad for the hard-working, law-abiding tattooed and pierced population, but there it is.

The quoted article doesn't ban all piercings, just more than one nose ring, more than five earrings (presumably in one ear), and eyebrow and tongue piercings. Maybe there's a concern about gang markings. Maybe there are other concerns we don't know about.

If someone with a visible tattoo wants in badly enough, he/she will have the choice of covering it up or getting rid of it. If the no-tat-limited-piercing policy is stipulated in the lease, then people with hidden tattoos who sign will be in breach of contract. I don't see any controversy.

A cover for what? A conspiracy to prevent upscale tattooed and pierced people from living in a particular, privately owned upscale apartment building?