I think it depends what they have tattooed. I mean, I wouldn't want somebody with a gang tattoo or a naked woman tattooed on them living next door to me. But anything else...I can't see why it'd be a problem.
I think it depends what they have tattooed. I mean, I wouldn't want somebody with a gang tattoo or a naked woman tattooed on them living next door to me. But anything else...I can't see why it'd be a problem.
This world is coming to shit!! Tattos are a form of body art and whatever you have tattooed on yourself shouldn't be discriminateed against! It doesn't change the person you are!!!!
I think it depends what they have tattooed. I mean, I wouldn't want somebody with a gang tattoo or a naked woman tattooed on them living next door to me. But anything else...I can't see why it'd be a problem.
I could understand if it was something incredibly offensive, such as a Swastika or a "KILL ALL MINORITES" tattoo or something. But it's just a tattoo.
A person is more than their appearance whether it's tat's, piercings, height, weight or ethnicity etc.. A person should be judged by their actions and whether they adhere to the rules set down in the lease with regards to their behaviour and use of the rental dwelling... NOT by their appearance.
This is just another form of discrimination, they can't do it by race or orientation so now they are attacking those that feel the need to express themselves with body art.
mooeysreindeer said:I think it depends what they have tattooed. I mean, I wouldn't want somebody with a gang tattoo or a naked woman tattooed on them living next door to me. But anything else...I can't see why it'd be a problem.
I could understand if it was something incredibly offensive, such as a Swastika or a "KILL ALL MINORITES" tattoo or something. But it's just a tattoo.
dosent have to just be a swaztica. in the russian mob they use tatoos to signafy rank. now if you just have a tatoo like most people there is no problem with it. but its not always just a tatoo.
I've got a naked woman under my clothes. I can't live in an apartment now? I don't really get the concept, how could a tattoo of a naked woman be worse than the real thing...it is illegal to not allow women, you know.
I'd say it doesn't matter at all (maybe if there was an EXTREME case where the tattoo had a specific threat against someone/a group of people directly and unmistakably spelled out on it, though I'm not sure I can recall ever seeing anything like that, but wouldn't that be classified under general threats anyway?).
A person is more than their appearance whether it's tat's, piercings, height, weight or ethnicity etc.. A person should be judged by their actions and whether they adhere to the rules set down in the lease with regards to their behaviour and use of the rental dwelling... NOT by their appearance.
It's all considered free speech anyway, isn't it? Even if it's offensive. Discrimination based on skin color's illegal, why not make it illegal to discriminate against something that's on one's skin? I guess the argument would be that it's voluntary. And every soccer mom in the universe has a lower back tattoo, I think. Are they going to require a full body check? Honestly.
I've got a naked woman under my clothes. I can't live in an apartment now? I don't really get the concept, how could a tattoo of a naked woman be worse than the real thing...it is illegal to not allow women, you know.
I'd say it doesn't matter at all (maybe if there was an EXTREME case where the tattoo had a specific threat against someone/a group of people directly and unmistakably spelled out on it, though I'm not sure I can recall ever seeing anything like that, but wouldn't that be classified under general threats anyway?).
I want to see some normal looking rapist or childmolester get approved for an apartment with this jackass then have the media confront him about his appearance values.
I want to see some normal looking rapist or childmolester get approved for an apartment with this jackass then have the media confront him about his appearance values.
I'm not sure about in TX, but here in WA there are laws protecting them (or so I've been told). There are at least 2 or 3 living in my mother's fiancee's parents' neighborhood...he worked with one of them, and apparently they were pressured to hire the guy based on some anti-discrimination act.
INDECENCY !
I'm sorry I wasn't aware it was also ethical to determine what was and is not indecent or acceptable for another person.
I could understand if it was something incredibly offensive, such as a Swastika or a "KILL ALL MINORITES" tattoo or something. But it's just a tattoo.
I'd say it doesn't matter at all (maybe if there was an EXTREME case where the tattoo had a specific threat against someone/a group of people directly and unmistakably spelled out on it, though I'm not sure I can recall ever seeing anything like that, but wouldn't that be classified under general threats anyway?).
Bingo. Alcy's got the right idea.
Thnkz for the add :)
howws u?
x