Vaunce News

🔒
❌ About FreshRSS
There are new available articles, click to refresh the page.
☑ ☆ ✇ Politics – The Daily Signal

Appeals Court Deals Blow to Racial Discrimination by Big Money Corporate Interests

By: GianCarlo Canaparo — June 17th 2024 at 18:45

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thrown a wrench into the blatantly discriminatory practices of big-money corporate interests.

In American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, over a bizarre dissent by a third judge, Judges Kevin Newsom and Robert Luck upheld an injunction against a venture capital fund with tens of millions of dollars in assets that gives money only to businesses owned by black women. Nobody else is eligible even to apply.

The plaintiff, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, sued on behalf of three of its members—business owners who aren’t black women and, therefore, aren’t allowed to compete in Fearless Fund Management’s funding process.

Fearless Fund was apparently fearless about violating anti-discrimination laws.

The threshold question was whether the American Alliance for Equal Rights had standing to sue on behalf of its members. Each member provided an affidavit showing he was “able and ready” to participate in Fearless Fund’s competition, meet all prerequisites but the racial one, and have concrete plans to use the funds they would get to build up their businesses if they weren’t racially excluded.

That is all that’s required to establish standing, according to Newsom and Luck, and they are correct—these business owners have an obvious claim since they are explicitly excluded from applying for the $20,000 in venture capital offered by Fearless Fund in its grant contest.

Yes, Fearless Fund discriminates against members of the Alliance for Equal Rights because of their race, but that isn’t enough to establish standing, according to Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee. In her dissent, Rosenbaum accused the alliance of “flopping”—that is, faking an injury the way soccer players do by flopping on the field—“to manipulate the referee into inappropriately exercising his power to award a penalty kick in the box.”

That’s a strange position to take in the 21st century. According to Rosenbaum’s illogic, members of the NAACP who, during the Jim Crow era, avoided hotels, restaurants, and buses where they knew they’d be turned away would be “flopping” because they didn’t go in and actually get turned away.

This retrograde view of civil rights ignores that, as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it recently, “discrimination is harm.” It would also force victims of discrimination into humiliating and even potentially dangerous situations before letting them seek justice.

It’s curious, isn’t it, how efforts to defend the race discrimination that is now trendy and politically correct in academia, the media, and the corporate world so often end up tolerating the race discrimination that was trendy in the past? The only difference between today and the 1960s is which race is being discriminated against and which is benefiting.

But Newsom and Luck took a principled view and reminded Rosenbaum, their fellow judge, that

we’re talking about real-live, flesh-and-blood individuals who were excluded from the opportunity to compete in Fearless’s contest solely on account of the color of their skin. Respectfully, victims of race discrimination—whether white, black, or brown—are not ‘floppers.’

They face very real race discrimination, and that discrimination, Newsom and Luck recognized, is forbidden by federal law.

The lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which, as the judges pointed out in their June 3 ruling, prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts. In fact, the entry form for applicants specifically said it was a “contract.” But Fearless Fund “conspicuously” changed that to take out the contract language after the lawsuit was filed in an obvious attempt to avoid the legal consequences of violating federal law.

In defense of its discrimination, Fearless Fund argued, in essence, that it was allowed to discriminate “so long as there are prospective funders out there who aren’t discriminating.” Newsom and Luck dismissed that argument as “anathema to the principles that underlie all antidiscrimination provisions.”

There is no doubt that the Southern racists of a long-gone era would have loved that argument. By Fearless Fund’s logic, so long as some hotels, restaurants, and buses served black people, they would be free to discriminate against black Americans.

We know that was wrong then. And it is still wrong today, as is discriminating against anyone on the basis of race.

In a last-ditch attempt to defend its discrimination, Fearless Fund argued that it had a free-speech right to engage in racial discrimination. But Newsom and Luck dismantled that argument too. There is a “critical distinction between advocating race discrimination and practicing it,” they said.

And again, an example from the past proves the point. If a restaurateur banned black people from his restaurant, he would certainly be making a statement, but while the First Amendment would protect his right to say racist things, it would not protect his act of discriminatory exclusion.

So, too, today.

Of course, the trendy race discrimination that Fearless Fund practiced has its defenders. A quick internet search will reveal angry pundits saying that the decision is racist, that it “fails black women,” that it represents “a sick victory,” and that it amounts to “using historic civil rights laws to attack black people.”

But take their arguments out of the thick cloud of rhetoric that pervades our era and apply them to the discrimination of the last one, and you will find what Rosenbaum missed—that to defend discrimination today is to excuse discrimination yesterday. There were angry pundits then, too, who no doubt argued that the ending of segregation and discrimination against blacks was a “sick victory” and an “attack on white people.”

The wiser path is to rise above our era and find the principles that transcend all of them, as Newsom and Luck did. Racial discrimination is always wrong—there is never any justification for it. And it is about time that the corporate world of American business recognized that, just as American universities have been forced to do.

Originally published by PJ Media.

The post Appeals Court Deals Blow to Racial Discrimination by Big Money Corporate Interests appeared first on The Daily Signal.

☑ ☆ ✇ Jihad Watch

France: Muslim who screamed ‘Allahu akbar’ and attacked cop is released with an electronic bracelet

By: Robert Spencer — April 3rd 2023 at 11:00
France: Muslim who screamed ‘Allahu akbar’ and attacked cop is released with an electronic bracelet
What could possibly go wrong? “​An individual suspected of Islamist terrorism released with an electronic bracelet,” translated from “Un individu soupçonné de terrorisme islamiste remis en liberté sous bracelet électronique,” Valeurs Actuelles, March 31, 2023 (thanks to Medforth): A questionable decision. On Monday March 27, a man suspected of an Islamist terrorist act was released […]
☑ ☆ ✇ Jihad Watch

Sweden: Court seals photos of Muslim migrant rapists so they won’t be ‘exposed to the disrespect of others’

By: Robert Spencer — March 31st 2023 at 15:00
Sweden: Court seals photos of Muslim migrant rapists so they won’t be ‘exposed to the disrespect of others’
What is Sweden going to be like in five years? Ten? “Court of Appeal: Rapists ‘become exposed to the disrespect of others,'” translated from “Hovrätten: Våldtäktsmän ”blir utsatta för andras missaktning,” Samnytt, March 27, 2023: The three men who earlier this month were convicted of robbing and raping prostitutes in Malmö risk being exposed to […]
☑ ☆ ✇ Jihad Watch

Tennessee ethics lawyer wins new chance to seek damages after being fired for tweets about Islam

By: Christine Douglass-Williams — March 24th 2023 at 07:00
Tennessee ethics lawyer wins new chance to seek damages after being fired for tweets about Islam
This is a significant win for the freedom of expression against a tide that has been usurping the rights of citizens. Gerald Dean Morgan merely asked the question in a tweet: “Where’s the evidence that ‘Islam is a religion of peace?” This was a reasonable question about an ideology. His firing sent the message that […]
☑ ☆ ✇ Jihad Watch

Sweden: Appeals court overrules cops, says burning the Qur’an is allowed by law

By: Robert Spencer — March 21st 2023 at 15:00
Sweden: Appeals court overrules cops, says burning the Qur’an is allowed by law
A rare victory for freedom and common sense. If Sweden disallowed Qur’an-burning because Muslims would riot, they would only be ensuring that Muslims will riot again the next time they want something. But given Sweden’s demographics, this permission is not likely to last long. “Paludan had the right to burn the Koran – court overturns […]
☑ ☆ ✇ Pamela Geller Articles – Geller Report

BREITBART NEWS: Seattle Imposes Ad Ban to Annul Pamela Geller’s Free Speech Lawsuit Victory

By: Pamela Geller — April 17th 2019 at 14:00

Another city bans free speech. Chilling. Read this.

Related:

Seattle Imposes Ad Ban to Annul Pamela Geller’s Free Speech Lawsuit Victory

Officials who oversee Seattle’s transit system moved to ban political, religious, and other ads from its facilities and public transportation vehicles soon after Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) prevailed in a freedom of speech lawsuit against the city, earning the right to run FBI’s Most Wanted terrorist posters, Breitbart News has learned.

By: Edwin Mora, Breitbart, April 16, 2019:

“People should realize that this is a struggle for the very foundation of any free society: the freedom of speech. If there is a group you can’t criticize, then that group can impose tyranny over you. If we lose this free speech battle, all our other freedoms are lost” Geller recently told Breitbart News via email.

She argued the advertisement ban sidestepped the September 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in AFDI’s favor, which allowed the group to advertise the Most Wanted terrorist list in Seattle.

However, the new restrictions, dubbed the “Geller ban” and instituted in December 2018 by the King County Department of Transportation’s Transit Division that oversees Seattle’s public transportation system, have ended up preventing AFDI from running the terrorist wanted ads, Geller pointed out, noting that her free speech lawsuit victory was bittersweet.

Before the appeal court’s ruling, judges had denied AFDI the right to place public service ads featuring images of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists on Seattle’s public transportation system, due to a perceived disparagement of Islam.

The city’s rejection prompted AFDI to sue the King County Metro system for its suppression of free speech.

“We won the right to run the FBI wanted terrorist poster that Seattle prevailed upon the FBI to withdraw [ in 2013]. And as soon as we triumphed, Seattle transit imposed the infamous Geller ban, banning political, religious and cause-related ads in Seattle (following NY, Washington DC, Boston, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, etc),” Geller told Breitbart News in the email.

In a document outlining the transit agency’s advertising restrictions, King County officials noted that the policy bans advertising on transit facilities and vehicles that fall within the categories of political, religious, government (except for the county’s), and other forms of “speech.”

“They banned all political ads, as that was the only course of action they could possibly take in order to continue to avoid running my ads,” Geller said. “They’re so determined to continue whitewashing Islam and denying and obfuscating the roots of jihad terror that they are willing to lose immense amounts of revenue from all political advertising.”

Transit agency officials argued that their “viewpoint neutral” ban seeks to prohibit “advertisements that interfere with and divert resources from transit operations, that detract from transit purposes by creating substantial controversy, and/or that pose significant risks of harm, inconvenience, or annoyance to transit passengers, operators, and vehicles.”

“Such advertisements create an environment that is not conducive to achieving increased revenue for the benefit of the transit system or to preserving and enhancing the security, safety, comfort, and convenience of its operations,” the officials added.

Responding to the agency’s argument Geller noted, “I see ads that annoy me all the time. If that is the criterion [for the ban], whose annoyance counts, and whose doesn’t, and why?”

She told Breitbart News that King County’s decision to ban FBI wanted posters featuring some jihadis amounts to the “enforcement of Sharia blasphemy law in another American city.”

King County officials described the transit agency’s advertising ban as“restrictions” that “foster the maintenance of a professional advertising environment that maximizes advertising, revenue, and protects the interests of the captive audience that uses Metro’s transit services.”

In other words, the county’s transportation department believes that banning certain ads will allow the county to generate more revenue.

“The ban will, obviously, drastically curtail their ad revenues. To argue otherwise is plain deception” Geller noted.

Nevertheless, the county asserted that the advertising policy intends to fulfill the following goals:

Maximizing advertising revenue; maintaining a position of neutrality and preventing the appearance of favoritism or endorsement by the county; preventing the risk of imposing objectionable, inappropriate or harmful view on a captive audience; preserving the value of the advertising space; maximizing ridership and maintaining a safe environment for transit customers and other members of the public; avoiding claims of discrimination and maintaining a non-discriminatory environment for riders; preventing any harm or abuse that may result from running objectionable, inappropriate, or harmful advertisements; [and] reducing the diversion of resources from transit operations that is caused by objectionable, inappropriate or harmful advertisements.

Geller vowed to keep fighting for free speech all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to ensure Seattle upholds the appeal court’s ruling.

☑ ☆ ✇ Pamela Geller Articles – Geller Report

BREITBART NEWS: Seattle Imposes Ad Ban to Annul Pamela Geller’s Free Speech Lawsuit Victory

By: Pamela Geller — April 17th 2019 at 14:00

Another city bans free speech. Chilling. Read this.

Related:

Seattle Imposes Ad Ban to Annul Pamela Geller’s Free Speech Lawsuit Victory

Officials who oversee Seattle’s transit system moved to ban political, religious, and other ads from its facilities and public transportation vehicles soon after Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) prevailed in a freedom of speech lawsuit against the city, earning the right to run FBI’s Most Wanted terrorist posters, Breitbart News has learned.

By: Edwin Mora, Breitbart, April 16, 2019:

“People should realize that this is a struggle for the very foundation of any free society: the freedom of speech. If there is a group you can’t criticize, then that group can impose tyranny over you. If we lose this free speech battle, all our other freedoms are lost” Geller recently told Breitbart News via email.

She argued the advertisement ban sidestepped the September 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in AFDI’s favor, which allowed the group to advertise the Most Wanted terrorist list in Seattle.

However, the new restrictions, dubbed the “Geller ban” and instituted in December 2018 by the King County Department of Transportation’s Transit Division that oversees Seattle’s public transportation system, have ended up preventing AFDI from running the terrorist wanted ads, Geller pointed out, noting that her free speech lawsuit victory was bittersweet.

Before the appeal court’s ruling, judges had denied AFDI the right to place public service ads featuring images of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists on Seattle’s public transportation system, due to a perceived disparagement of Islam.

The city’s rejection prompted AFDI to sue the King County Metro system for its suppression of free speech.

“We won the right to run the FBI wanted terrorist poster that Seattle prevailed upon the FBI to withdraw [ in 2013]. And as soon as we triumphed, Seattle transit imposed the infamous Geller ban, banning political, religious and cause-related ads in Seattle (following NY, Washington DC, Boston, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, etc),” Geller told Breitbart News in the email.

In a document outlining the transit agency’s advertising restrictions, King County officials noted that the policy bans advertising on transit facilities and vehicles that fall within the categories of political, religious, government (except for the county’s), and other forms of “speech.”

“They banned all political ads, as that was the only course of action they could possibly take in order to continue to avoid running my ads,” Geller said. “They’re so determined to continue whitewashing Islam and denying and obfuscating the roots of jihad terror that they are willing to lose immense amounts of revenue from all political advertising.”

Transit agency officials argued that their “viewpoint neutral” ban seeks to prohibit “advertisements that interfere with and divert resources from transit operations, that detract from transit purposes by creating substantial controversy, and/or that pose significant risks of harm, inconvenience, or annoyance to transit passengers, operators, and vehicles.”

“Such advertisements create an environment that is not conducive to achieving increased revenue for the benefit of the transit system or to preserving and enhancing the security, safety, comfort, and convenience of its operations,” the officials added.

Responding to the agency’s argument Geller noted, “I see ads that annoy me all the time. If that is the criterion [for the ban], whose annoyance counts, and whose doesn’t, and why?”

She told Breitbart News that King County’s decision to ban FBI wanted posters featuring some jihadis amounts to the “enforcement of Sharia blasphemy law in another American city.”

King County officials described the transit agency’s advertising ban as“restrictions” that “foster the maintenance of a professional advertising environment that maximizes advertising, revenue, and protects the interests of the captive audience that uses Metro’s transit services.”

In other words, the county’s transportation department believes that banning certain ads will allow the county to generate more revenue.

“The ban will, obviously, drastically curtail their ad revenues. To argue otherwise is plain deception” Geller noted.

Nevertheless, the county asserted that the advertising policy intends to fulfill the following goals:

Maximizing advertising revenue; maintaining a position of neutrality and preventing the appearance of favoritism or endorsement by the county; preventing the risk of imposing objectionable, inappropriate or harmful view on a captive audience; preserving the value of the advertising space; maximizing ridership and maintaining a safe environment for transit customers and other members of the public; avoiding claims of discrimination and maintaining a non-discriminatory environment for riders; preventing any harm or abuse that may result from running objectionable, inappropriate, or harmful advertisements; [and] reducing the diversion of resources from transit operations that is caused by objectionable, inappropriate or harmful advertisements.

Geller vowed to keep fighting for free speech all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to ensure Seattle upholds the appeal court’s ruling.

❌