Yet one more case of rental gross-ness

Renter descrimination is real.  It is all too often based in racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia.  Renters are at the whim of the landlord, and it all is often swept under the rug.  But some biases are on the books:

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.”

I don’t mean to suggest that not allowing an individual with a full sleeve tattoo (that was bought and paid for) is on par with racism – far from it.  I just found the article proved a lot of theories I had.  When interviewing for my apartment I covered up all my tattoos (as did my partner) but apparently by the linked complex my earrings would have kept me from being able to rent from their ‘fine establishment.’

I can hear the ‘common sense’ answers now of : but you take those piercings out for interviews, you cover your tattoos when you want to leave a good impression.  This is true, but how far does this policy go?  If a person covers up when interviewing for the rental, is a great tenant for a year but is spotted sporting their sleeve at the pool does this mean their lease can’t be renewed?

If America is the home base for individuality what the hell is the problem with at tattoo?