An interesting fight is brewing in San Antonio over a new type of alleged discrimination. Gilbert Carrillo was not only denied a lease but lost his application fee due to his tattoos, which he views as an art form. Lawyers for the landlord confirmed that they “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.” Such discrimination does not in itself constitute violations of the federal housing rules or even the constitution. Unless used against individuals based on race, religious, or gender (or in some cities sexual orientation), it is not a form of actionable discrimination. On one side, there is the right of individuals to contract freely, including their right of exclusion. On the other side are people who are being rejected solely on their appearance — much in the same way that race or gender is used as a barrier. This has long been a tough call. Food establishments are allowed to deny service on some appearance criteria — though clothes are easier to add than tattoos are to remove (at least from the face or neck where they cannot be covered). For the full story, click
SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL OPINION BLOG (2011)
SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG (2008)
Winner — Top Opinion Writer By Aspen Institute and The Week Magazine for Best Single-Issue Advocacy (Civil Liberties)
I think it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to be judged solely on the fact that they have tattoos. Tattoos and piercings are simply a way of expressing ones individuality. It is an outdated assumption to believe that people with tattoos and piercings are criminals, drug dealers or prostitutes. There is a growing number of people with each new generation that express themselves in this way. I have a hard enough time understanding why this kind of discrimination happens in the work place but this case is even worse. There should be a change in the laws that protect people like Gilbert Carrillo and I. This should be treated just as racial, sexual and age discrimination. We may have chosen to put these designs on our bodies but they are part of who we are, and without them we would not be the same people. I would not feel like I was whole without my body art. It is the art of a canvas that was once blank, if you want a blank canvas thats fine with me, but I do not.
We all had the freedom to express ourselves.Nobody had the right to judge person by his/her appearance.
In our apartments in arizonathere’s no such thing called as “banning” a person because he/she had a tattoo.
Tracy -
You have the freedom to express yourself. But people have the right to judge others however they want to. If that includes tattoos, visible or not – some people are going to judge you on it; positively or negatively. Others won’t judge at all.
We do have the right to judge you though. Just like you have the right to judge me to be a hater. What is this aversion to judgement anyway? It’s the only thing we really have to form the basis for choices.
- Rick