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