4 ms·
Having to audibly name the religion/ethnicity of beneficiaries of charities is a pretty wild requirement for a US charity. That may have been the judge’s frami
by aranchelk 5mo ago
Having to audibly name the religion/ethnicity of beneficiaries of charities is a pretty wild requirement for a US charity.
That may have been the judge’s framing, but it seems off from what I typically expect from mainstream US news.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- futter9 5mo agoIt's not at all wild if the charity presents itself as non-discriminatory (ostensibly to deceive "outsiders" into misguided donations) while specifically benefiting the ethno-religious group of its administration. It's clearly deceptive and exploitative.
- EdwardDiego 5mo agoIt would depend on what the precise federal/state law regulating charities is - it sounds, to me, (I'm a Kiwi, but heard one of their ads on the radio today in an Uber in SF) like they need to be more specific about what charity they're raising money for - the after just said "for charity". I'm sure you'd agree that if I was advertising in the name of kids to raise money for a charity, and it happened to be that the particular charity I was raising money for had determines it should give Hamas money to help those kids, that potential donors would prefer to know where exactly their money was going to.
- suburban_strike 5mo ago[dead]