[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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