Sound bite for the day
I find it rather coincidental that this article has surfaced on one of the web pages that I read, since my wife and I are currently trying to find a place to rent in Singapore and I am getting frustrated with the discrimination of "no china allowed" or "no indian allowed" restrictions that are posted outright on the internet. Looks like there is some discrimination as well in the states, though it is more of a personal choice in what the person decides to do with their life/bodies than what they were given at birth.
The one thing that I had to sound bite for today was the reaction of one of the owners of the building when he said:
"(we) reject prospective tenants who have... tattoos exposed on the neck, head, hands and wrists, or large tattoos that cover over 40% of the lower or upper arm."
"We do not discriminate. The above applies to persons of any race, color, gender, etc."
we do not discriminate, we just wont rent to anyone regardless of their race, color or gender that have tattoos? yeah, ok, so what exactly is discrimination? Those crazy americans, always out to do something funky.
I do remember a case here in Canada not too long ago where a tenant was a smoker, rented an upstairs loft from a landlord who became pregnant and when the tenant was asked to stop smoking, she refused and it was taken to the landlord/tenant board and it was decided that the tenant could keep smoking and the landlord had no right to ask her to stop smoking. Just wonder if this is similiar to the case in the states where the landlord is saying 'we wont rent to you cause of your tattoos, but remove the tattoos and we would be happy to have you'.
I also enjoy how the American tenant board says that the decision not to rent to tattooed individuals is unfair but not illegal, unless the tattoos are specified to a persons religion. So, why should those in a religion be excluded from this loophole while those that do it out of love and devotion arent? If you tattoo because it is a religion, arent you doing it to show your love and appreciation for something...and if you tattoo because you love the art and want to show your love and devotion of it, then wouldnt your religion be called 'art loverism'? Think if this guy started the cult/religion of tattooed people they would let him rent in the units? hmmm, either which way, still gonna laugh on that discrimination sound bite.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=57db782b-9874-4b37-aa00-0402ab8a7ab1
Some SA Apartments Banning Tattoos
Last Update: 9/25 11:22 am
(Clear Channel) 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.
Gilbert Carrillo thinks tattoos are an artform. He's been to tattoo conventions and one of his tattoos was featured in a magazine. "Ever since I was 18, to now, 25, bit by bit, covering up here, covering up there."
But last month, Carrillo's tattoos kept him and his wife, Melissa, from moving into an apartment complex called the Villas at Medical Center. "We liked the apartment, we brought them a check for the deposit and a check for the application fee," says Melissa.
Later, Gilbert went by to look at the apartment wearing a short sleeve shirt. The next day, the Carrillos were told they didn't qualify to live there, because the tattoos on Gilbert's arms violated the policy on personal appearance.
"For them to be so judgmental on a person's appearance, and for them to judge someone based on them having a tattoo is just ridiculous, you know," says Melissa.
The Carrillos were also upset that the manager refused to refund their full $70 application fee. But mostly, they feel the policy is discriminatory.
So the Trouble Shooters went to the Villas at Medical Center to hear their side of it.
The manager, Daisy Salazar, said she wasn't allowed to talk to us. "We have our own lawyers, I can't speak to anyone," said Salazar.
But we didn't give up. We contacted one of the owners of the apartments: A southern California doctor named Edward Frankel.
Frankel e-mailed us a statement saying his apartment complexes do, in fact, "reject prospective tenants who have... tattoos exposed on the neck, head, hands and wrists, or large tattoos that cover over 40% of the lower or upper arm."
Frankel says, "We do not discriminate. The above applies to persons of any race, color, gender, etc."
Frankel, and his partners, have purchased numerous upscale apartment complexes in San Antonio and Dallas, where they've also banned pierced eyebrows and tongues. Tenants can't have more than one nose piercing, or more than five earrings.
Local fair housing officials say the rules may be unusual, but they are not illegal.
"Refusing to rent to somebody because they have tattoos may be unfair, but it's not discrimination under the fair housing act, unless the tattoos are specific to the person's religion or national origin," says Sandy Tamez of the San Antonio Fair Housing Council.
After the Trouble Shooters started looking into the case, the apartment complex refunded the Carrillos' full application fee.
But the couple is still angry that a landlord would consider body art to be the mark of a bad tenant.
The one thing that I had to sound bite for today was the reaction of one of the owners of the building when he said:
"(we) reject prospective tenants who have... tattoos exposed on the neck, head, hands and wrists, or large tattoos that cover over 40% of the lower or upper arm."
"We do not discriminate. The above applies to persons of any race, color, gender, etc."
we do not discriminate, we just wont rent to anyone regardless of their race, color or gender that have tattoos? yeah, ok, so what exactly is discrimination? Those crazy americans, always out to do something funky.
I do remember a case here in Canada not too long ago where a tenant was a smoker, rented an upstairs loft from a landlord who became pregnant and when the tenant was asked to stop smoking, she refused and it was taken to the landlord/tenant board and it was decided that the tenant could keep smoking and the landlord had no right to ask her to stop smoking. Just wonder if this is similiar to the case in the states where the landlord is saying 'we wont rent to you cause of your tattoos, but remove the tattoos and we would be happy to have you'.
I also enjoy how the American tenant board says that the decision not to rent to tattooed individuals is unfair but not illegal, unless the tattoos are specified to a persons religion. So, why should those in a religion be excluded from this loophole while those that do it out of love and devotion arent? If you tattoo because it is a religion, arent you doing it to show your love and appreciation for something...and if you tattoo because you love the art and want to show your love and devotion of it, then wouldnt your religion be called 'art loverism'? Think if this guy started the cult/religion of tattooed people they would let him rent in the units? hmmm, either which way, still gonna laugh on that discrimination sound bite.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=57db782b-9874-4b37-aa00-0402ab8a7ab1
Some SA Apartments Banning Tattoos
Last Update: 9/25 11:22 am
(Clear Channel) 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.
Gilbert Carrillo thinks tattoos are an artform. He's been to tattoo conventions and one of his tattoos was featured in a magazine. "Ever since I was 18, to now, 25, bit by bit, covering up here, covering up there."
But last month, Carrillo's tattoos kept him and his wife, Melissa, from moving into an apartment complex called the Villas at Medical Center. "We liked the apartment, we brought them a check for the deposit and a check for the application fee," says Melissa.
Later, Gilbert went by to look at the apartment wearing a short sleeve shirt. The next day, the Carrillos were told they didn't qualify to live there, because the tattoos on Gilbert's arms violated the policy on personal appearance.
"For them to be so judgmental on a person's appearance, and for them to judge someone based on them having a tattoo is just ridiculous, you know," says Melissa.
The Carrillos were also upset that the manager refused to refund their full $70 application fee. But mostly, they feel the policy is discriminatory.
So the Trouble Shooters went to the Villas at Medical Center to hear their side of it.
The manager, Daisy Salazar, said she wasn't allowed to talk to us. "We have our own lawyers, I can't speak to anyone," said Salazar.
But we didn't give up. We contacted one of the owners of the apartments: A southern California doctor named Edward Frankel.
Frankel e-mailed us a statement saying his apartment complexes do, in fact, "reject prospective tenants who have... tattoos exposed on the neck, head, hands and wrists, or large tattoos that cover over 40% of the lower or upper arm."
Frankel says, "We do not discriminate. The above applies to persons of any race, color, gender, etc."
Frankel, and his partners, have purchased numerous upscale apartment complexes in San Antonio and Dallas, where they've also banned pierced eyebrows and tongues. Tenants can't have more than one nose piercing, or more than five earrings.
Local fair housing officials say the rules may be unusual, but they are not illegal.
"Refusing to rent to somebody because they have tattoos may be unfair, but it's not discrimination under the fair housing act, unless the tattoos are specific to the person's religion or national origin," says Sandy Tamez of the San Antonio Fair Housing Council.
After the Trouble Shooters started looking into the case, the apartment complex refunded the Carrillos' full application fee.
But the couple is still angry that a landlord would consider body art to be the mark of a bad tenant.
posted by Capt_Canuck at 1:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home