Bidens' racist Covid bill requirements struck down by Appellate Court.

A federal appellate court on Thursday invalidated the racial and gender preferences in President Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act as unconstitutional. The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit of Appeals ruled that provisions of that law, designed to grant preferences to minority-owned small-restaurant owners for COVID relief, violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law:

Source.

Very happy to hear this.

The Government should not be discriminating against its own people based on race and/or sex.

Another Klaw bait thread :/

I guess you're okay with the Government discriminating against people based on race and/or sex.

But I'm not.

[Quote]The lawsuit was brought by Jake’s Bar and Grill, a restaurant jointly owned by Antonio Vitolo, who is white, and his wife, who is Hispanic. If Vitolo's wife owned more than 50% of the restaurant, then Jake’s Bar and Grill would be eligible to receive priority treatment for a grant, since her ethnicity qualifies as “socially and economically disadvantaged” under the law. But because she only owns 50% — her white husband owns the other half — the restaurant's application cannot be considered until the Small Business Administration (SBA) first processes all applications from restaurants entitled to priority status based on race and gender, as well as veteran status./quote]

Boneheaded move by the Democrats for several reasons.

Starting with the fact they should have known this was unconstitutional.

Either that or they knew all along this would get struck down by the courts, and did it to win good will for the effort (Or if you prefer, "Virtue Signal"😉

And the second reason, as outlined in the quote, is it harms minorities who aren't at the majority ownership line.

The lawsuit was brought by Jake’s Bar and Grill, a restaurant jointly owned by Antonio Vitolo, who is white, and his wife, who is Hispanic. If Vitolo's wife owned more than 50% of the restaurant, then Jake’s Bar and Grill would be eligible to receive priority treatment for a grant, since her ethnicity qualifies as “socially and economically disadvantaged” under the law. But because she only owns 50% — her white husband owns the other half — the restaurant's application cannot be considered until the Small Business Administration (SBA) first processes all applications from restaurants entitled to priority status based on race and gender, as well as veteran status.

Boneheaded move by the Democrats for several reasons.

Starting with the fact they should have known this was unconstitutional.

Either that or they knew all along this would get struck down by the courts, and did it to win good will for the effort (Or if you prefer, "Virtue Signal"😉

And the second reason, as outlined in the quote, is it harms minorities who aren't at the majority ownership line.

Originally posted by cdtm
Boneheaded move by the Democrats for several reasons.

Starting with the fact they should have known this was unconstitutional.

Either that or they knew all along this would get struck down by the courts, and did it to win good will for the effort (Or if you prefer, "Virtue Signal"😉

And the second reason, as outlined in the quote, is it harms minorities who aren't at the majority ownership line.

Minorities who do not have majority ownership do not have majority risk or majority burden either, so they are not being harmed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another Klaw bait thread :/

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Minorities who do not have majority ownership do not have majority risk or majority burden either, so they are not being harmed.

What is it they say about the relative value of a dollar based on economic hardships? Can't a minority owner be hurt far more then a richer majority owner?

OP is a butthurt Trumper.

Originally posted by Klaw
I guess you're okay with the Government discriminating against people based on race and/or sex.

But I'm not.

The government does have a responsibility to account for the societal racial injustice, as in if certain things are affecting certain groups more then there nothing wrong about make sure that get accounted for.

If you ignore that context then that's like whining about government aid not being evenly distributed across all states without taking into account population size, state's financial needs, and etc.

Originally posted by Newjak
This might be one of the most context clueless replied I've ever seen.

The government does have a responsibility to account for the societal racial injustice, as in if certain things are affecting certain groups more then there nothing wrong about make sure that get accounted for.

If you ignore that context then that's like whining about government aid not being evenly distributed across all states without taking into account population size, state's financial needs, and etc.

Originally posted by Newjak
This might be one of the most context clueless replied I've ever seen.

The government does have a responsibility to account for the societal racial injustice, as in if certain things are affecting certain groups more then there nothing wrong about make sure that get accounted for.

If you ignore that context then that's like whining about government aid not being evenly distributed across all states without taking into account population size, state's financial needs, and etc.

Why?

People are individuals first. Racial injustice may be a good guideline on how address inequity, but the fact is a white family and a black family suffer equally. Human suffering is equal.

Yet a white family will be denied resources that are earmarked for black famlies. This is based off of my lived experience, when my own family was denied aid for a crippled senior, and the state rep told us (Off the record) if we had been black there would be no issues getting help.

Originally posted by cdtm
Why?

People are individuals first. Racial injustice may be a good guideline on how address inequity, but the fact is a white family and a black family suffer equally. Human suffering is equal.

Yet a white family will be denied resources that are earmarked for black famlies. This is based off of my lived experience, when my own family was denied aid for a crippled senior, and the state rep told us (Off the record) if we had been black there would be no issues getting help.

Actually, people are individuals last, because categorizes start with generalities and end with specificities. Suffering may be equal, but hardship is not distributed equally. So it is not discrimination to treat fundamentally different situations differently.

cdtm needs to be buttraped

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
cdtm needs to be buttraped

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Actually, people are individuals last, because categorizes start with generalities and end with specificities. Suffering may be equal, but hardship is not distributed equally. So it is not discrimination to treat fundamentally different situations differently.

Robtard the retard post:

Originally posted by Blue Eon
OP is a butthurt Trumper.

Originally posted by Klaw
I guess you're okay with the Government discriminating against people based on race and/or sex.

But I'm not.

You're using a strawman argument yet again, klaw :/

What strawman is that?

Originally posted by Klaw
What strawman is that?

Also that because he may support measures by the government to account for societal discrimination in their bills and programs that he in turn supports the above when they aren't logically the same.

At least that's my guess because at the end of the day I'm not Robtard.