San Antonio Apartment Complexes are Refusing to Rent to People with Tattoos and Body Art

San Antonio Apartment Complexes are Refusing to Rent to People with Tattoos and Body Art

www.woai.com

It's against the law for landlords to discriminate based on the color of a person's skin. But can they reject you because of what's on your skin?

Some San Antonio apartment complexes are refusing to rent to people with tattoos and body piercings. News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooter Jaie Avila investigates the case of one couple who says that policy is unfair.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 27/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

This is very bizzare and I wonder if it is legal? I understand it does not violate Federal laws regarding discrimination because of Religion, Gender etc, but what about their 1st Amendment rights, were they violated?

It should be noted the same complex's are also limiting the number of body piercings an individual can have.

www.woai.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 9/27/2007 by shots]

totally legal. The complex (among with many others in San Antonio) was bought and "remarketed" towards a higher-class demographic.

The the strangest thing I've ever heard of! I'm sure it's legal or they wouldn't come out and admit it, but totally unfair. So having tatoos or piercings makes you low class? Obviously these people can afford it, which would mean they fit into the higher class, wouldn't it?

reply to post by closettrekkie


As a landlord myself I would be very leerey of renting to someone who looked sketchy. Call it wrong, but its my property and an asset and I want to make sure its taken care of. We have had and currently rent the house out to section 8 housing (county assistance). Never had any problem with that and in fact they have been some of the better tenants we have had.

Let put this in another way.

Lets say you owned a Ferrari. Would you allow the car to be rented for even a day to some guy wearing a "party naked" sleveless shirt? A house is no different

Originally posted by scientist
totally legal. The complex (among with many others in San Antonio) was bought and "remarketed" towards a higher-class demographic.

That is what the complex owners are saying, yet I am not so sure about it being legal when it comes to first amendment rights of free speech.

Mod Edit: Mod made a mistake, sorry

[edit on 9/27/07 by FredT]

reply to post by shots


Shots, if they were forcing them to remove the tatoo's then it may be a free speech issue. But you talking about someones private property etc.

Its a property rights issue and I think that would win out. You can speek freely just no on my property etc.

[edit on 9/27/07 by FredT]

reply to post by FredT


Would I rent my Ferrari to someone with a Party Naked t-shirt? Sure I would if he had the proper documentation, money and insurance. But that brings up a good question. Do rental car agencies rent their cars to people with party naked t-shirts and tatoos?

By the way, I have met lots of people with many piercing and tatoos and they are some of the nicest people I've ever met. Even though I've never been attracted to that kind of look, I've got nothing against it. I try to judge people by their behaviors, not their looks.

yep.

i don't agree with it, but it's totally legal to deny someone based on the clothes they are wearing (to include tattoos and piercings).

reply to post by closettrekkie


Its not as easy as it sounds and its one thing to know the applicant, quite another to make that kind of rapid assesment in 5 minutes. Its an easy debate untill you weigh the safety of an 800000 dollar asset, it truly is.

reply to post by shots



I don't know....can a tatoo even be considered a freedom of speech item? They're not speaking and they're not being made to cover them up out in public, nor are they thrown in jail for having them. I think the freedom of speech thing is way too over used sometimes.

Originally posted by closettrekkie
I don't know....can a tatoo even be considered a freedom of speech item?

I am not real sure but I would tend to think if an individual had a tatoo of any religous symbol on his arm it would be.

Originally posted by FredT
As a landlord myself I would be very leerey of renting to someone who looked sketchy. Call it wrong, but its my property and an asset and I want to make sure its taken care of. We have had and currently rent the house out to section 8 housing (county assistance). Never had any problem with that and in fact they have been some of the better tenants we have had.

Let put this in another way.

Lets say you owned a Ferrari. Would you allow the car to be rented for even a day to some guy wearing a "party naked" sleveless shirt? A house is no different

i myself have had problems when i went to rent apartments before cause of all my tattoos. i got in at the places but it was an issue...
fredt, what does a 'sketchy' person look like?
you want to assue your property is taken care of...who wouldn't?
that said, if i dropped off an application with my wife and you saw me sleeved up with tats on my throat, hands, and knuckles, you'd 'possibly NOT' rent to us?
even though we have the first and last, good credit, whatever?
just curious...

i just don't see how seeing a person with lots of ink(if thats what a sketchy person looks like) will lead you in the way of 'they might not take care of your property'...
kinda not cool you know?

your ferarri argument? lame
if i was in the biz of RENTING ferrari and the dude with the party naked shirt on had insurance, the cash, the deposit, etc...all the qualifications that a person in an armani suit would have, then yeah, i'd rent them the car...

reply to post by Boondock78


boondock,

The Ferrari while perhaps lame is illustrative of the point I was trying to make. its easy to say "id never do that" untill its your asset, and youa re looking at its damage or loss. Its hard to describe untill you are in the position. I simply cannot be all that altruistic and I have to look out for what is mine and what me and my family worked very had and had to make sacrafices to achieve.

Since you have impeccable ATS references I would hand you the keys no problem . But on a serious side, It would depend on a case by case basis. I did not mean to give the impression that your body art would be the sole reason that your application would be denied. Like I said case by case basis. If your tats were say for the Aryan Brotherhood, Le Emie, Crips etc, oh yea, we would be done. Prison record, on the Megans law computer If your references, do not check out, if your FICO was too low, etc etc. Body art does not make you sketchy in an of itself and has become more mainstream. You may find down the road as you gain assests you will be more conservative with them.

For practical matters the rent in an of itself is a barrier. For our house you need excellent credit and the first last plus deposite would run you 9K upfront, so that in and of itself is a barrier (unless its section 8 that is. In that case its just the first and a lowered security dep. because the county assumes responability adn payes the rent.)

Originally posted by FredT
If your tats were say for the Aryan Brotherhood, Le Emie, Crips etc, oh yea, we would be done. Prison record, on the Megans law computer If your references, do not check out, if your FICO was too low, etc etc. Body art does not make you sketchy in an of itself and has become more mainstream. You may find down the road as you gain assests you will be more conservative with them.

i'm with you there man on all the aryan junk and gang tattoos. i wouldn't have that either....

was just wondering what you, as a potential landlord thought was sketchy...i definately get where you are coming from....

and damn. 9 grand up front.....

reply to post by Boondock78


SF Bay Area, the prices of homes are really high and with the housing market crunch its a landlord market right now. We have good tennants right now and we actually lowered the rent a bit to keep them in as they had lost one roommate. They never complain (or at least whent hey do its for good cause) etc. Those kind of tennants you hang onto at ALL costs.

reply to post by FredT


once i saw your location i figured it...

fact is, no matter if it is just or not, people DO discriminate against people with ink....not all people do but it is out there.

i have been turned down for jobs and they straight out say it's cause the ink...every time i have tried to argue the "we do not discriminate against any race or color but it don't work.

i was gonna get a part time job at the emissions check station up here. the dude that took my ap was a real jerk....was giving me static about my ink the whole time so i went right above him...they gave me the job on the spot when i was complaining but i turned it down...no way i was gonna work next to a prick like that for my shift you know....

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by closettrekkie

 

Its not as easy as it sounds and its one thing to know the applicant, quite another to make that kind of rapid assesment in 5 minutes. Its an easy debate untill you weigh the safety of an 800000 dollar asset, it truly is.

That's true, but the article says their application was accepted initially. Apparently the landlord liked what he saw when he met them and they passed the credit check. It was only after he saw the tats that he rejected them. So it really is just all about judging someone by their looks and not their actions.

I wonder if they could sue. Granted, technically it's legal, but if the attorney were to come up with a clever case stating it was discrimination due to the color of his skin??? Hmmm? Maybe??

Originally posted by closettrekkie

I wonder if they could sue. Granted, technically it's legal, but if the attorney were to come up with a clever case stating it was discrimination due to the color of his skin??? Hmmm? Maybe??

i have never put a lawyer on this but i have attempted to use that very argument....it didn't work

reply to post by closettrekkie



I don't know if they could sue? Possibly? But restaurants can and do refuse service to anyone and can do so for no reason at all. Its interesting that he accepted then refused. They may have something here esp if they signed a lease