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?

I'm guessing you don't have any piercings or tattoos?

that doesn't quite wash, since they are not undressing the rest of the population. It's like doctors saying that most piercings get infected. Well, duh--that's what they see, so that's the way it seems. Incomplete data leads to erroneous conclusions.

So, the apartment owners get to say who lives there. Fine. It's not illegal, it's not discrimination. I still find it reprehensible behavior. People like that probably find some excuse not to rent to non-white people, people with children, etc. And no, I don't have any evidence of this, I'm just speculating.

I wouldn't want to live in a self-described "upscale" community, anyfuckingway.

If I have none, does that disqualify my opinion? Why? If I have some, why should I have to give you that information? It's irrelevant. Regardless of my personal state of ink/non-ink and/or piercing/nonpiercing, my point - which is that piercings and tattoos are a choice, not a condition of birth - is valid. A private business can make the choice not to do business with people who have chosen to decorate themselves in this way. Obviously they'll have fewer customers.

I suspect the intention is to avoid gang problems. I really don't think there's a conspiracy to discriminate against body art.

(Yes, I have some.)

Piercings are not related to gang activity, so why the ban on them?

They just don't want those kind of people in their apartments.

Well, I think it's probably owned by conservative snobs who live in the past and don't realize they're living in a fools paradise, if they're not very lucky, it's going to come back and bite them on the arse.

I said visible tattoos and multiple piercings tend to be over-represented. You know, the kind that don't require undressing to see. But doctors (in general) don't say that most piercings get infected. That's your erroneous speculation or anecdote.

So it's all right to make sweeping pejorative generalizations about 'people like that' with no evidence whatsoever, as long as 'they' are .. what? 'Other'? 'Not like you'?

Then it's a win-win situation.

I must say that until we do a large scale study of all people with tats or piercings we cannot make comments about people who have them. There really is no imperical data to support such notions.

We can make comments about gangbangers and criminals and state that many of them have tats. But there is absolutely no way we can say that people who have tats are criminals and therefore I suspect some savy lawyer will come along and sue the hell out of that business.

[quote=TheMercenary;391577]I must say that until we do a large scale study of all people with tats or piercings we cannot make comments about people who have them. There really is no imperical data to support such notions.

True, but we need even more
We need to randomly select (say...) 10,000 people with tattoos and/or piercings, and 10,000 people without tattoos and or piercings, and compare the incidence of anti-social behavior between the two groups.
Then we will have empirical data ... but then what?

Suppose there is a difference, and that the tattooed group is more anti-social? Are we then allowed to exclude one INDIVIDUAL because of a resemblance to a group? What about (this is true) my 65-year-old, law abiding mother, who is a retired community nurse and active Justice of the Peace, with a lotus flower tattooed on her ankle? Yeah she's trouble, she is... :headshake

Suppose there is no difference. Are private groups allowed to limit the memberships of their groups to "people like us"? Or does the state have the right to force groups to admit members no one in the group likes? I find the former distasteful and the latter outrageous.
(A dangerous topic for my first post! Gee, I hope you guys like me! :blush: )

Welcome, ZenGum!

Oh, won't someone think of the property values?

oh, won't someone think of the right of the property owner to be an idiot? if he wants to be a poor business person and limit his pool of clients to folks that haven't gotten tattoos or multiple piercings then so what? i think it is stupid, but what is the big deal?

I don't have any tattoos or piercings.

Those people that have them kinda freak me out. It's not that I'll avoid them but that I'll put them into "that catagory" of people. At least until we have a chance to talk.

There have been some pretty cool people that I've met with tattoos and piercings. I'm cautious when talking with them because they are almost always left leaning "this and that is my right and I'll do whatever I God damned well please and you can fuck yourself " sort of person.

Normally they are that sort of person that is totally opposite of who I am.

Now, if this somehow sounds like you, we could still be friends. I know you don't need friends but generally speaking this is the case.

There was a guy I met in Florida that was a great photographer and web artist. He wore eyeliner which was a bit different but was a genuinely nice guy.

We didn't talk politics much. :)

only in L.A.
 

In Calabasas, CA there is a law being debated that would make it illegal to smoke in YOUR OWN apartment, even on your balcony. Landlords, upon a tenant moving out, would have to rent each apartment as a non-smoking unit. Now, I'm a non-smoker, but this seems pretty ridiculous, and seems to be punitive toward lower income people, who can't afford to buy (a $600,000 plus) house in this area

The days of separating people by tattoos is over.
It is like saying those who smoke are heroine addicts because most addicts smoke, you cannot make the concussion because the other end of the spectrum does not fit.
Doctors, lawyers and CEOs have tattoos on their forearms regularly.
It is an incorrect stereotype. I happen to know a VP and an owner of fortune 500 companies that both have visible tattoos, one is a war hero. Both are VERY conservative.
I would not want to live with those morons too... I think it is great, a big sign that says "IDIOTS LIVE HERE, STAY AWAY! ".

You mean the people that have them where you can see them... kinda freak you out. Don't you? Just imagine how many have them, and you can't see them, there are millions out there.

not to mention cultural perceptions of body art may be quite different in the Phillipines.

You talking' to me?

If you have an exclusive product, that does not limit its appeal, but makes it rather stand out amongst a sea of otherwise similar competitors.

As an example, people spend a lot of money for organic food because they've been convinced, without any real data, that it's somehow better than non-organic. In reality, the opposite is probably true and they are paying more for an inferior, and potentially dangerous, product.

You think organic is not better than something that's been sprayed with chemicals to within an inch of it's life and then picked from the vine weeks before you actually get to eat it which means all the good chakra is gone anyway...along with any nutrients that sun ripening provides?

Exclusivity has it's drawbacks, but that's not really the issue here. It's the fact that the owners think that they're making their place more exclusive by keeping out a very large proportion of the general and exclusive public.

Any idea how many celebrities who would be considered exclusive, have tattoos? I wonder if they'd want to keep someone like say...Sarah O'Hare out. She's a top model and one very classy lady who happens to have a very small tattoo on her upper arm.

The list is endless.

I have grown both organics and standard foods. Worked with PhDs and Masters, run trials from UF and others and can tell you, unequivocally, that organic is VASTLY superior in EVERY way imaginable.

Exactly what I'm saying. No data.

Yeah, those Doctor's and University studies are meaningless. LOL!

Sure, they lied about their results, then requested that we switch over so we made a LOT more money from them and the retailers... makes perfect sense.

How can it possibly not be better for you to eat less chemicals?

HLJ, what data are you referring to?

Back to the thread...
what if the tattoo consists of a six digit number in blue ink on the left forearm?

(the point being, this was how the nazis marked concentration camp victims)

Do tattoos applied against one's will count?

from the snippet of the article quoted by Bruce in the OP

-I'd say that'd probably cover it

to be fair (much as it goes against the grain in this instance); these people are not banning all people with tattoos or piercings--just large, visible tattoos, and multiple piercings past some arbitrary limit they've made.

I was going to start a new thread on organic food to get it out of this thread, but I found that there were already three:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=2873
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5131
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14072

I have not read the third one yet.


Water is a chemical, and I need lots of that.

Actually, what do we eat that isn't made of chemicals?

And remember, lead, arsenic and cyanide are all natural.

My inner lawyer says: not so (and charges me $130 for the advice, the greedy bastard :blah: ) on the grounds that these tattoos are not specific to the person's religion (most Jewish people don't have them) or national origin (as above).

Mind you if this case DID arise I reckon the business owners would allow the exception on these grounds. Imagine the stink if they fought it, the headlines...

But this clause WOULD cover Maori (native New Zealander) facial tattoos. These are sometimes huge swirls that cover most of the face and can be intimidating to many people, and are sometimes associated with antisocial behaviour. And how about those Africans with the huge lip-disks (see IotD)?

I think what we have here is an apartment manager who has decided to try to keep the riff-raff out, but who has come up with a very clumsy way of doing so. I guess it was supposed to be easier to administer than a full character/background/appearance check, but in the end I think its going to be so inaccurate in weeding out the unwelcome, and so hard to administer, that it just won't work.
I'll be curious to see how long it lasts.

It shouldn't be illegal, but it is closed-minded and annoying. OMG, people with tattoos are scary! :rolleyes:

Of course lead etc are naturally occuring, however, we don't set out to add them to our food on purpose. That really is not a very good comparison. I could say that magic mushrooms are organic too, but I wouldn't be sitting down to a plate of them for dinner would I?

As far as the production of organic produce goes, the issue is not the base particles of the food that is in question. It is the poisons that are sprayed on the food to keep bugs off. It also encompasses the soil the plants are grown in and the fact that it should be free of pollutants and it covers the water and fertilizer used to encourage growth.

It's fairly simple HLJ. I expected a bit better from you to be honest.

If you dont like organic food, don't eat it. If you think your health is worth considering when you decide whether the purchase organic products or not, then buy the organic produce.

There may be no irrefutable facts either for or against organic produce however, if I have the choice, I'd much prefer the product without pesticides and other pollutants.

There is one irrefutable fact about the organic bananas I buy from my grocery store: they last for over a week before turning brown, while the regular bananas go from green to yellow to brown over the course of three days. It doesn't really matter if the hormones that ripen the crops faster affect me or not, it's already worth the extra expense if I don't have to go to the store twice as often.

Ali, we've gotten a bit off track. My point wasn't to advocate for or against organic produce, my point was that people will decide that something is better without having sufficient data to prove that it's better.

Here is my original post.


You've made the statement that "If you think your health is worth considering when you decide whether the purchase organic products or not, then buy the organic produce." But you later say, "There may be no irrefutable facts either for or against organic produce however, if I have the choice, I'd much prefer the product without pesticides and other pollutants."

To me this indicates that you've bought into the exclusivity argument (here using the organic example) while admitting that you don't have any basis for your preference.

=========
[I wasn't trying to get in to the organic debate, but here's the reasoning for my position: Before any pesticide can be sold in the US, it must go through years of rigorous testing, including tests by EPA and USDA and other government organizations. But chemicals used on organic food do not go through a comparable testing process, and are not necessarily safe. Raw manure is used as fertilizer and copper is used as a fungicide in organic farming. The health effects of copper have not been tested.]

It's not about exclusivity HLJ, and I think you'll find that for most people that choose organic they'd agree.

It's about believing there are health benefits from not ingesting poisons into the system. There's no buying into it and I don't need a study to tell me what must clearly be true.

Eating poison will make you sick.

NOW I remember why I didn't want to get into this debate :frog:.

Well, that's ok. ;) You'll probably find it's hard to convince someone that feels strongly about the health benefits of organics to change their mind.

Probably best not to have the argument till you can produce facts saying that organic is not better. :)

Yeah, it's on the same list with religion and Apple computer products.

I don't think so.

Religion is one thing.

Computers are different. There are pros and cons to apple just as there are to microsoft products. That comes down to personal choice and what suits you better.

Organics are also a personal choice.

The exclusivity thing only works when people are given an alternative reason to believe in (higher class, more healthy...)

And religion is.........?

How much copper is safe? At what point does it become a poison?

Grape seeds contain arsenic, you know. And heavy metals.

"poison" is somewhat subjective here.

ok, so how bout next time you sit down to dinner you spray your food with a nice dose of insecticide just before you eat it?

religion is about faith.

believing is about having certain facts presented and agreeing that they're correct.

fact, some people find the cost of apple products prohibitive so choose not to use them.

fact, organic products are not sprayed with poison so I choose to prefer them.

you have faith that they are not sprayed with organic poison ;)

Well, the certification process is fairly stringent over here, so I'm reasonably confident that what is labled as certified is indeed what it claims to be.

Other than that, I grow my own produce without pesticide and so does my dad who keeps me supplied every other week with stuff that i don't grow.

Our diet is by no means fully organic, but I just think it's a lifestyle choice which is important to work towards.

Speaking of lifestyle choices, perhaps the SA apartments banning people with tattoos were less concerned with them as tenants and more concerned with the wild life they might attract!

Could this happen with amorous armadillos in the area? :eek:

LOl! Oh, thank you for that. That goes right to my bodymod buds!

"Orangutan has fetish for tattoed blondes."

Don't we all? ;)

Is this a bad time to say that I grow organic apples?

Alright...I'm leavin'..........
:D