Comments on: Discrimination on the basis of body modification

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:03:48 +0000

I always have to wonder, having once lived in NYC, how the multi-million dollar co-ops manage to keep out anyone they please, but middle class apartment complexes, single-family neighborhoods and Craig’s List advertisers get creamed by the apparatus.

The answer is simple AA. The trial attorneys live in the million dollar co-ops. 🙂

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:34:35 +0000

I would imagine that the people who apply to live in a co-op understand that they may not get chosen to live there and I would posture that the co-op boards use somewhat less slippery slope and/or logically flawed reasoning for deciding whether to disallow someone to live there. It also helps to not tell people why you aren’t accepting them and to not end up in the newspaper about your obnoxious practices.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:24:34 +0000

Walter, if tattoos were deemed a form of free speech, could they be prohibited in federally subsidized housing?

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:29:29 +0000

The surest route to victory here is to allege that the tattoo/piercing ban is a pretext for racial or religious discrimination. Find a Wiccan with a nose piercing or a Hispanic person with a Virgin Mary tattoo, and you’ll have a full head of steam against the apartment complex.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:43:35 +0000

Thufir: I would not be surprised if there were a correlation between tattoos and a suspicious classification. Sociopathy and bad credit maybe, classiness, no.

If people can trash their bodies, what can they do to an apartment?

By: Thufir

Thufir — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:31:52 +0000

I would be surprised if there was a correlation between tattoos and a suspect classification. Class maybe; classification no.