I heard this on a talk show this morning. How is this any different then saying, you can't live here because you have pets, or you can't live here because you smoke. What do you think?
2007-09-26 02:04:47 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes. We live in a very diverse world. People need to stop getting hung up prejudices. So far there is room for everyone. Let those that wish to live one way, live that way, and those that wish to live another way, live that way. There are too many of us to try and conform to everything.
2007-09-26 02:07:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Selecting tenants is often, by its nature, a process of discrimination. Landlords must choose from among various tenants who apply for an apartment where there is strong demand for available units. We have outlined certain forms of discrimination which we find improper and we have made those illegal-race, gender, religious affiliation are the major ones. I would see no rational reason to widen that category to include individuals with tattoos or piercings. Is this discrimination morally wrong? Yes, but the law cannot police every action between private individuals. The market will take care of most of these inefficiencies in the long run.
2007-09-26 02:14:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They probably shouldn't be able to. Smoking and pets can have a negative effect on or damage their property, while tattoos and piercings do not. However, pierced and tattooed individuals are not a protected class and thus a landlord would be within the law to discriminate on that basis.
2007-09-26 04:02:56 · answer #3 · answered by Brian A 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about saying, "You can't live here because...you have a fat butt" or "an ugly face" or "a strange hair-do" or bad taste in clothing or finally....that you aren't White, Black Latino or Asian, etc. There's a point where human rights need to over-rule personal prejudices. If landlords REALLY don't want to rent to someone, they can use excuses other than tattoos and piercings.
2007-09-26 02:11:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is against the law to discriminate against people for the way the appear. Pets are different, some people have dogs/cats that aren't house-trained and want to live in a place with carpeting. I could see the logic in landlords saying no, or having some kind of deposit or monthly payment that is assessed to the rent. I believe the same goes for smoking, what if they don't want their apts/houses to smell like smoke, they have the right to seek nonsmoking tenants.
2007-09-26 02:10:01 · answer #5 · answered by Jae Rae 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yep, as long as the tattoos are related to a protected class. Nothing against the law.
2007-09-26 02:11:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that anyone who owns the property has the right to decide the characteristics of the people who live there, within the confines of the law.
2007-09-26 02:09:05 · answer #7 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ALL of the situations you detailed are legally allowed to be excluded from the premis.
A landlord has the right to not rent to those he/she deems not acceptible UNLESS they are a member of a protected status and your examples do not fit the category.
2007-09-26 02:10:18 · answer #8 · answered by hexeliebe 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the landlord having tattoos and piercings should give them any more rights than landlords that don't.
2007-09-26 02:08:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Thats stupid. Just because people have tattoos and piercings doesn't mean that there not human or "normal".
2007-09-26 02:15:45 · answer #10 · answered by skitts 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋