I found this very thought provoking, and I've kinda gone back and forth on it. I think the moderator would be within rights to inform the guy that the tats have to be covered. Brandishing them seems antisocial and possibly a blatant intent to be offensive, as you point out. On that, I have to agree.

But you say that him covering up the tats wouldn't help because what you really object to is not just him signaling hateful sentiment. What really offends you is the execrable thoughts that likely have found a home in his brain. It offends you that someone who is presumably thinking these thoughts should be allowed in the group. Like - shouldn't this be a situation calling for ostracism? Doesn't ostracism have a proper social function, and wouldn't this be it? I find some merit in that, but I'm not quite with you.

It wasn't too long ago, in this country, that many, respectable members of some very mainstream religions had some pretty alarming ideas about each other - like "Everyone in that Church is going to Hell!" "No, you are!" "No you are!" Back and forth. I've heard stuff like that on TV in my own lifetime. And, even now, it's not hard to run into that on the Internet. My point is that, if we start ostracising people, based on what we figure they're probably thinking, where does it end? I have every right to not be friends with someone because I don't like how they think. But I wouldn't say I have a right to demand that a person be excluded from a public accommodation (e.g. your support group) because I don't like what goes on in their mind.

My conclusion is this: What goes on inside other people's heads is really their own business. There's a lot of crap going on in a lot of people's heads that society is never going to control. However, in a social setting, people are obligated to keep some stuff to themselves. If a person needs direction as to what that stuff is, someone like your group moderator has a right to give it to them.

Neanderthals sporting tattoos like you describe are often less harmful than their ideological counterparts who wear gabardine to work and sit on the board of directors at a bank that restricts residents of reclined districts from having access to financial instruments like checking accounts and reasonably priced credit. Individuals, like those board members, blend in beautifully wherever they go and will never, ever advertise the subversive agenda that they work to further.

I kind of get a kick out of persons who go around emblazoned with insignia that basically screams, "Yeah, I'm a jerk, and I don't care who knows it." (. . . unless said individual is also carrying an automatic rifle.)