ACLU Sues Ronald McDonald House for Refusing To House People Convicted of Assault
The ACLU's lawsuit is filed on behalf of a New York man whose application to stay in a Ronald McDonald House was denied because of his 12-year-old felony assault conviction.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Legal Action Center (LAC) are suing Ronald McDonald House Charities and its Hudson Valley chapter, for not providing discounted housing to people with felony assault convictions, a policy they say is a violation of the Fair Housing Act and New York human rights law.
"Government agencies have long warned housing providers that unjustified and unnecessary blanket bans from housing based on criminal history disproportionately harm Black and Latine people and are unlawful," said Amanda Meyer, an ACLU attorney in a press release.
Ronald McDonald House Charities, a non-profit partially funded by but distinct from the McDonald's fast food company, runs Ronald McDonald Houses on or near hospital campuses across the country, where families with children undergoing longer-term hospitalizations can stay for a nominal sum.
The ACLU, NYCLU, and LAC are suing on behalf of New York resident Juan Mieles, whose application to stay at a Ronald McDonald House was rejected because of his criminal history.
Mieles had applied to stay at the Ronald McDonald House at the Westchester Medical Center—where his 17-year-old son was receiving cancer treatments—back in 2022. The charity rejected his application after a criminal background check turned up a 12-year-old felony assault conviction, for which he'd been incarcerated.
Mieles tried to appeal the decision, stressing the time since his conviction and the role he played in his son's care, but the charity didn't budge. Unable to stay at the Ronald McDonald House, Mieles instead had to drive an hour one-way from his home in Queens during his son's six-week cancer treatment course.
The Ronald McDonald House Charities didn't respond to Reason's request for comment.
His lawsuit describes this as a hardship for Mieles and his family. The complaint argues that blanket bans on people with criminal convictions are illegal under the federal Fair Housing Act.
The federal Fair Housing Act bans racial discrimination in housing provision. Subsequent fair housing case law and federal regulations have widened the definition of racial discrimination to include neutral policies that have a "disparate impact" or "discriminatory effect" on particular racial groups.
The ACLU and co. argue in their lawsuit that the Ronald McDonald House Charities' policy on criminal convictions violates this disparate impact standard, given the higher rates at which black and "Latine" individuals are convicted of crimes.
Their lawsuit cites 2022 regulatory guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) saying that blanket bans on people with criminal convictions can violate the Fair Housing Act. HUD says that housing providers' criminal conviction policies should, at a minimum, give room for individual assessment of the circumstances of the crime and the time elapsed since the crime.
Critics have long argued that the disparate impact standard often leaves housing providers guessing at what policies of theirs might end up being illegal.
"There's no way to really know that you're going to be facing potential liability down the road," Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, told Reason last year. "It does put landlords in a really tough position, and it's tough to know what a court will find legitimate."
The ACLU and other fair housing groups have filed several lawsuits against housing providers for maintaining policies they say have illegal disparate impacts. Last year, the ACLU, alongside several Illinois fair housing groups, sued a Chicago-area landlord for not renting to people with past evictions.
Their lawsuit against Ronald McDonald House Charities asks that Mieles be awarded compensatory and punitive damages and that the charity stop enforcing its criminal convictions policy.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The ACLU and co. argue in their lawsuit that the Ronald McDonald House Charities' policy on criminal convictions violates this disparate impact standard, given the higher rates at which black and "Latine" individuals are convicted of crimes.
This should be laughed out of court, but this is NYC.
Latine? Is that a new one? I've heard of Latin, Latino, and the made-up Latinx. Is Latine so gringos know how to pronounce it?
How 'bout we go with "Lashizzle".
Another Welfare Rat sues for a free ride.... major story.... WTF????
Ok, that was funny, I don't care who ya are.
Yes. Because of the pushback - by Latinos - against their neo-colonialism attempt with 'latinx', they pivoted to *butchering French* and trying to impose it on their colonial possessions.
Because, as we know, the French had just the nicest people running their colonies . . .
No matter what though, AWFL *will* tell you what to do - including that you're using your own language wrong. But its (D)ifferent when they do it.
Turns out Latinos didn't like "Latinx" because, among other things, it isn't Spanish and it was thought up by the language dictators. I don't think they're going to like "Latine" any better, given that it it's just one "r" off a better-known English word.
'....Subsequent fair housing case law and federal regulations....' that were never contemplated nor intended by the legislature, but bureaucrats and un-elected Judges always know best.
Yes, you're definitely OWED something provided by a charity.
Fucking ACLU.
A private charity sort of has a duty to ensure the safety of those they offer to help. Keeping dangerous criminals out of their facilities is one way. Maybe they were overly cautious in this case, but better to be overly cautious than underly cautious.
I could se e the ACLU suing if they DID let these people in and one of the, viciously assaulted someone.
Lawyers really are a breed apart.
Maybe other organizations, but the ACLU has always been pro-violent criminal
Yes, leftists want special protections for violent criminals while simultaneously disarming law abiding citizens and criminalizing any self defense. Alvin Bragg is an example of that phenomenon.
"A private charity sort of has a duty to ensure the safety of those they offer to help. Keeping dangerous criminals out of their facilities is one way."
Not just charities. Regular for profit landlords of multi-unit buildings can face liability if one tenant attacks another.
Making consideration of criminal history illegal is a catch-22 for landlords.
“Regular for profit landlords of multi-unit buildings can face liability if one tenant attacks another.
Making consideration of criminal history illegal is a catch-22 for landlords.”
Both of those laws are bad. If a man is free, not subject to any legal interdiction to live where you are housing him, and not currently involved in any continuous illegal activities that you know of, you should not be held responsible for his future crime just for being his landlord. But you should not be forced to house him either.
If an ex-convict is so dangerous that he can't be housed anywhere, perhaps the state should be held liable for letting him outside.
The ex-convict can only serve what he's been sentenced. No one should be held liable for releasing him after completing the full prison term.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement about over/under-caution like this.
This is more a (IMO) 'its too expensive to process individual exceptions to the policy and no one who's told 'no' is going to be happy about it because they all think they're special cases so let's not even bother' bureacracy than anything.
I don't think they're wrong here, but I don't think they're right either. Dude should have just sucked it up - its better to have RMH even if it excludes 10 out of every 100 than to not have it at all. Those 10 aren't made *worse off* by being denied housing here - the default for this guy would have been what he actually did (live an hour away).
Mieles instead had to drive an hour one-way from his home in Queens during his son's six-week cancer treatment course.
Britches, here's the world's smallest violin for him on that part. There are people who commute over an hour each way to a job every damn day. That's hardly a hardship.
This article is as stupid as the sob story of the kid who wasn't provided a bus to go to school across town than the school across the street.
https://reason.com/video/2022/01/24/for-too-many-charter-school-families-getting-to-school-is-a-struggle/
That's nuts. She could talk with other parents about carpooling. Or even move to a different apartment complex that's closer as I'm assuming she lives in the apartment complex across the street from the one school.
Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!!!
The thing is, everything IS terrible and unfair.
Everything.
People need to hear the phrase "Tough shit, get over it" an awful lot more often. At least in regards to things where people are doing their best and, maybe, it just isn't perfect.
My son had a benign bony tumor in his foot when he was in junior high/middle school. We didn't know it was benign until after they removed it (most likely it was but there was a small chance it wasn't). This required multiple trips to Minot to be taken care of, in the fall and early winter. Minot is a four hour drive, one way, from our house. Yeah, it was kind of a pain in the ass, but I didn't bitch about it and work my schedule out so he could get the treatment he needed. That's kind of what being a parent is about.
I drive 90 miles to work and 90 miles back, and I'm 64. Maybe the ACLU will sue my boss and make them move the company closer to me.
Can't hurt to ask. Well, until they come for their pound of flesh.
TBF, it does suck to try to commute like this when you have to leave your kid in the hospital to take care of things at home/shower and sleep/etc. We lived about an hour away from the hospital when my daughter was in the NICU and staying in RMH was a lifesaver. Admittedly I was breastfeeding every 2-3 hours and bleeding heavily postpartum, so a bit different, but we were already on the edge of what we could handle without having to leave our daughter for multiple hours or shell out thousands for hotel rooms on top of crazy medical bills.
That being said, I think it’s outrageous that this guy is suing RMH for not subsidizing him. They do a really good thing, the guy is no worse off than if they didn’t exist at all, leave them alone instead of diverting resources that could be used to help other families.
The ACLU and co. argue in their lawsuit that the Ronald McDonald House Charities' policy on criminal convictions violates this disparate impact standard, given the higher rates at which black and "Latine" individuals are convicted of crimes.
What's neat about the current standard is that it's objective: previous convictions for a felonious assault. It's either true or it's untrue. So what the ACLU is asking for is to put some subjective criteria in there about how long and how severe the assault was, and pretending like THAT is somehow going to avoid creating a disparate impact.
Beyond that, it's a fucking charity. You are not entitled to their services. And you're an individual; it doesn't matter if you demographically resemble a group that commits and is convicted of crimes at a higher rate than the national average. Otherwise, simply being male would carry a sufficiently disparate impact.
And people say "critical race theory" isn't being used in any real way, it's just a chimera put forward by fox news viewers and Ron DeSantis.
"Disparate Impact" is a concept that came straight out of Critical Race Theory.
convicted of crimes
There's one nearly foolproof way to avoid getting convicted of a crime: Don't commit them.
Eh people are convicted of things they didn't do alarmingly frequently. Some take plea deals just to move on.
Plead to things they didn't do, to avoid possibly getting convicted of something worse?
Or just plead because they can't afford to fight and the sentence they're being told the court will hand down is way worse than the plea deal.
Find me the man who has copped to felony assault "just to move on".
Go to https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ and filter by contributing causes and false confessions. And those are just the ones that the Innocence Project took on.
People who are young or feel particularly helpless are, all too often, tricked or browbeaten into making false confessions. On average, for those who have later been cleared of their conviction, they had been under interrogation for 16 hours. The police are allowed to lie, to pretend that they have irrefutable proof, to claim that someone he knows "ratted him out."
Another way is a common prosecutorial ploy, to pile on every possible crime they can, and then tell them that if convicted, rightly or wrongly, he could spend the rest of his life (or 20 years or 50 years or whatever time span they can come up with) in jail, but if he pleads guilty to this one crime, the worst he can get is a year or two. Public defenders will often urge them to take the plea deal, regardless of innocence.
This site only lets me sort Type of Crime by "Homicide Related", "Sex Crimes", and "Other". There are only 8 cases in the "other" category, so this should be pretty quick.
Brian Piszczek - Did not plead guilty. He's here because of witness misidentification.
Ronald Gene Taylor - Did not plead guilty. Eyewitness misidentification and mishandling of DNA evidence.
William Gregory - Did not plead guilty. Eyewitness misidentification. Old DNA testing schemes.
Byron Halsey - Did not plead guilty. False confession.
Stephan Cowans - Did not plead guilty. Eyewitness misidentification. Government misconduct. Faulty DNA testing.
Sedrick Courtney - Did not plead guilty. Eyewitness misidentification, faulty DNA testing.
Terry Chalmers - Did not plead guilty. Eyewitness misidentification.
Antonio Beaver - Did not plead guilty.
So after painstakingly going through your own fucking sources which apparently you didn't even look at, just "here's a link, I'm sure my preferred answer to your question is in there somewhere", I found nothing. Not even a site dedicated to profiling people exonerated of crimes can find me the man who plead guilty to felonious assault. One confessed to murder and sexual assault (which is really weird that he wasn't excluded from my search), because he was mentally disabled and not acting under the advice of an attorney, but once in the courtroom he properly plead Not Guilty.
So again, I reiterate, find me the man who cops to felonious assault so that The Man will just let him get on with his otherwise peaceful life. This time you do it.
This is not a thing that people do (unless they actually killed someone and are somehow trying to argue a lesser charge of only beating the shit out of them and the whole victim dying bit happened all on its own).
That's . . . not a foolproof way in the real world. Plenty of people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
Honest question here; maybe I'm just overthinking this, but...
Wouldn't the disparate impact standard actually require people to actively discriminate based on race in order to not be guilty of engaging in discrimination under that standard?
Only if you assume that "discrimination" is a blind concept that can be done to any group. Pretty sure 105% of people pushing Disparate Impact are on board with the idea that "discrimination" only applies one way to specific groups.
The underlying assumption here is that if there is a 'disparate impact' then you are *by definition* discriminating - or else the impact wouldn't differ (because of an assumption that everyone is the same and interchangeable and culture and upbringing play no role in anything) so therefore you must be affirmatively discriminating even if we can't find any actual evidence of that.
Your policy might be stated to be race-neutral but if it has a 'disparate impact' then it is considered to have been put in place specifically to discriminate. You sneaky fucking racist, you.
Sure I get the assumption, but if I'm a college admissions guy (pre-2023) and I have to live by the disparate impact standard, wouldn't I be required, by law, to give preferential treatment to black students to ensure they were enrolled at the same rates as white students. Otherwise, I could be sued for discrimination.
If I go to trial, and let's say that I use completely objective standards (say, admissions at my school were 100% based on SAT scores) but blacks were underrepresented, I'd lose that trial under this standard? And the only way to not lose this trial would be to lower the SAT requirements for black students? How is this not a catch-22?
No. You can't do that. You also can't have disparate impact.
As we would say in the military - I don't care, just make it happen. Then if you get caught, well, no one *told* you to do that specific thing, did they?
While I appreciate this 'just-the-facts-ma'am' style of reporting, what's the libertarian take here, because I know what my take is.
If the charity won't voluntarily help this guy who committed crimes our, government will need to step in to force the private charity to help.
/chemjeff
The absolute state of the ACLU.
I said, "What's the libertarian take", not the center left, Clintonian 90s Bill Maher take.
Are you sure that isn't too far to the right for Jeffy?
Think it is about time the goverment needs to stop paying all this bullshit!
Hey, what would happen if this was a child rapist claiming this ,bet you so called liberal asshole would still be on his side.
Get a f##king life. You don't like get the hell out of this country!
LOL. Someone's new here.
I laughed.
A slightly tangential point:
It's interesting that between the ACLU, Reason, and the nominal libertarian challenger to (and totally not a Millennial recreation of) the ACLU, FIRE, you have to ask that question isn't it?
Latine...
the fuck is that word?
A latino Molly user.
Someone really wanted to use Latinx but also didn't want to get laughed at.
I bet it's more serious than that. The left finally realized they were driving away hispanics, who overwhelmingly fucking HATE "latinx" instead of latino or latina.
I really wish they'd keep pushing that latinx word. That and conflating all Spanish speaking cultures. Cubans love being thought of as Mexican. Sooner or later even the hardest core hispanic Democrats will have to see how little the party really thinks of them.
E and X are very close on the keyboard.
It's their woke-ass attempted answer to all of us Latinos who like to constantly remind them that Latinx isn't a word, that it's unpronounceable in Spanish, and that expecting people of color to adopt your sensitivities is cultural colonialism.
That freaked them out a bit.
They missed the memo on how gendered language is kind of integral to the culture and society. I don't think they've ever read Cervantes, for instance.
My not-so-new policy is zero tolerance. If I get hit with some linguistic bullshit, I'm calling it out.
"Latine" is only barely actually pronounceable in Spanish, but if you try, it sounds really queer. In every sense of the term.
That makes me curious how it is supposed to be pronounced. If it's lah-teen then spanish speakers would just spell it latin. As spelled they'd pronounce it lah-teen-aye (though accented.)
How do the white bitches pushing this word pronounce it?
If you pronounce it how they spell it (which is how Spanish typically works) you would put the emphasis on the 2nd syllable, just like Latino or Latina, so: lah-TEEN-ehh
But I'm pretty sure the wokies pronounce it Lah-TEEN.
A lateen or latin-rig is a triangular sail set on a long yard mounted at an angle on the mast, and running in a fore-and-aft direction.
And how many triangular sails set on a long yard mounted at an angle on the mast, running in a fore-and-aft direction, live in YOUR apartment building, sir? Anti-Latine discrimination in housing is real!
I am now ashamed that my reference to "House Niggers" below doesn't also connote the oblivious, white, elitist conflation of "Sailboat rigging" and "wetback" implicit in "Latine".
An easy mnemonic, because it makes you think of "latrine," and that reminds you, "Oh, them."
Another name for toilet?
So, I was looking at the actual PDF of their lawsuit (https://www.lac.org/assets/files/Mieles-v-RMH-RMHC-Complaint.pdf) for something else, namely that they cite a 2022 ruling that happened after this guy’s application was rejected (they do). And their very first footnote is actually this:
1 This Complaint uses “Latine” in place of “Hispanic,” the term that is commonly used in the sources and data referenced. “Latine” is growing in use and preference as a Spanish-compatible and gender-neutral term to describe people of Latin American origin, background, or descent, while “Hispanic” is technically defined by use of the Spanish language. People currently use the terms “Hispanic,” “Latine,” “Latino/a,” and “Latinx” interchangeably. Unless otherwise noted, the sources and data referenced herein define “Black” and “white” individuals as non-Latine or non-Hispanic, and this Complaint adopts those definitions.
I’m wondering, is it wise to start off your argument by putting the court on notice that you’re just going to be using made-up terms that you will need to define for them? That basically just replace already accepted terms in the source material and mean the same thing?
If I was the court I'd
1. Make them provide me the data they are using to say 'is growing in use and preference' - where and among who?
2. And then make them re-submit with the changes undone.
Latine…
the fuck is that word?
Latin elites or establishment. Just like GOPe. White, leftist, establishment elites who imagine themselves as Latino for diversity purposes that are really only nominal and/or serve to reinforce the larger hierarchy.
Use it in a sentence: The Latine People are losing out to a new working man’s GOP.
See also “Latinx”, “House Nigger”, and “Own goal”
What color was everyone’s skin?
Ronald McDonald's face is pure white, from what I've seen.
Gingers have no souls.
Grimace is purple. Possibly from Colloidal Silver. Maybe ADA covers him. 🙂
😉
This should be an easy case. The charity is providing services free of charge. Thus, it isn't covered by the various civil rights laws.
Well, not really. The charity provides discounted services, not completely free services.
It's also not true that charities are universally exempt from all civil rights laws. Some charities do get some exemptions from some laws but it's a long way from a universal exemption.
“There is no charge for families to stay. Donations are accepted. In order to ensure the safety of all of our guests, we conduct criminal background checks for all prospective guests age 18 and older.”
https://rmhctucson.org/what-we-do-2/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20charge%20for,guests%20age%2018%20and%20older.
Does this apply to The Hamburglar too?
🙂
😉
You provided a link to the Tucson chapter's practice. The Hudson Valley chapter apparently has a different rule.
"Although our actual cost is approximately $183.00 per night per family, we only ask for $15.00 per night per family to stay at our house."
That said, the page also later says that "We never turn a family away due to inability to pay" so perhaps there's some ambiguity.
Apologies. It was the first hit on google, I assumed they were all the same.
Hey Reason! Better crank up the Florida Man articles again.
https://wgntv.com/news/judge-tosses-disneys-lawsuit-against-desantis-alleging-political-retaliation/
“At the end of the day, under the law of this Circuit, ‘courts shouldn’t look to a law’s legislative history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute.’… Because that is what Disney seeks here, its claim fails as a matter of law,” Winsor wrote.
Bad luck for Disney. Didn't find a lefty judge who screams animus.
Too bad, so sad.
And right on cue...
Here's Eric "Reluctant and Strategic" Boehm: https://reason.com/2024/01/31/disney-cant-prove-desantis-retaliated-against-it-federal-judge-rules/
“Hey Reason! Better crank up the Florida Man articles again.”
Florida Man is out of the race, no more Florida Man bad articles until 2028.
Not so fast, you never know who's going to get the party's No. 2 chair.
Especially considering that for all the talk of Harris dropping the 25th on Biden, I would give Haley and the NeverTrump GOPe about equal odds.
Is the ACLU going to take a bow and congratulate itself on getting this charity shut down for good or are they going to blame others for the consequences of the forced implementation of their marxist ideology?
Fucking racists of the ACLU deserve contempt as they continuously push America to the lowest common denominator.
The Ronald McDonald House hasn't yet said how they'll respond to this accusation but I wouldn't blame them if they decide to take their ball and go home.
Move to dismiss with prejudice, Latine is not an officially recognized race, ethnicity, creed, nationality, sex, gender, or religion on any government document, census, or form. You can’t discriminate against an fictional social construct, much less disproportionately. Ergo, no harm, no standing, moot point, pay your bill on the way out and don’t come back.
If they were saying he was discriminated against because of his identity, perhaps, but he says he was discriminated against because of actions he was prove in court to have actually done.
Now, courts are certainty fallible but in this case it seems he didn't even attempt to say he wasn't guilty so...I suppose this is the end result.
It's patently obvious that the charity 'discriminates' on this basis as a safety measure for the people they are helping. If violent felon becomes a protected group, this charity should just shut their doors because I suspect they aren't actually looking to host fight club.
And yeah, I'm perfectly aware that not everyone convicted of a violent felony will go and commit more of them. Heat of the moment and all that. Still, lots of people get angry without an assault charge. What does that say about this guy in particular? Nothing, but then the charity probably can't take the time or expense to individually check every single person to determine how big of a risk they may actually pose.
Lastly, this guy was apparently able to travel to see his son so what, exactly, is the injury here? That he had to spend gas money or take a bus? Oh, the horror! While I feel bad for the guy, no parent should have to deal with a kid that has cancer, I don't feel bad enough to screw over hundreds of other people just for him.
It was a bit of a flight of fancy but your correction is not correct or at least not entirely. They're specifically saying that the issue is disparate impact. Presumably, discriminating against predominantly-white felons like white collar crime or selectively discriminating against anti-black hate crime perpetrators or even insurrectionists and anyone alleged in a court of law to have sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll is A-OK (if not mandatory).
Everyone should write his or her Congressman about this.
Are there enough congressMEN who can read?
To hell with running libertarian candidates and letting the voters have a turn with the 2x4... Mule trainer joke (https://bit.ly/3QpGuKk)
No way in hell anyone is stupid enough to click on that shady link.
Cogressmine
So McDonald house is to blame for making more blacks and 'some silly ass made up word' commit more crimes than Whites?
I call bullshit.
Somebody with a math degree and lots of time please do a statistical analysis of ACLU cases to see if there is a disparate impact on rich White people.
Love it! "The Institute for Justice today filed a lawsuit against the ACLU for discriminatory activities." Oh, wait ... rich white people aren't one of the listed "protected classes" ... never mind ...
I can't speak for everyone, but 'We don't give free shit to criminals' seems like an OK policy for a charity that has a mission of helping families and children.
"ACLU Sues Ronald McDonald House for Refusing To House People Convicted of Assault" ...
... because the ACLU could not find anything more important to do than sue a charitable organization that helps family stay near their sick kids while receiving desperate treatment for their deadly illnesses? Or does the ACLU simply hate the scary clown image?
Being radical leftists, they probably want government to pay for everyone's medical treatment.
"the thing is never the thing, it's always the revolution"
bans from housing based on criminal history disproportionately harm Black and Latine people
Gee, I wonder why that is.
White Supremacy.
+1. I would have also accepted "systemic racism" and "TiT is a racist."
"Mieles instead had to drive an hour one-way from his home in Queens during his son's six-week cancer treatment course."
Wut?
"an hour one-way"
Wut?
Isn't Ronald McDonald House for people who live at least a days drive away or out of state?
Apparently each chapter is allowed to set its own rules. The Hudson Valley house says that "Rooms are given based on the critical nature of the patient and distance from the family’s home to the hospital." So presumably a family traveling a full day would get priority but someone only an hour away would not be automatically excluded.
Well, from Queens, there are probably at least a couple of state lines within an hour's drive, depending on traffic.
Literally EVERYTHING in Queens is an hour away! It takes at least an hour to get onto the subway, let alone get where you're going. When I first read that "hour one way" my reaction was, "Are you effing KIDDING me?"
"Well ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!"
-Ulysses Everett McGill
When we stayed there in Houston, they had a certain number of rooms, you had to apply each day, and families were prioritized based on distance, seriousness of illness, and age of child (my daughter was a newborn, so even though we lived only an hour away, I was breastfeeding every 2-3 hours so staying in RMH was a huge help).
I think someone noted above that, if they had a "flexible" policy considering felons on a case-by-case basis, that would set up a lawsuit that they were using their discretion to practice racial discrimination.
Really, when you get right down to it, everything is racist.
I guess Ronald McDonald didn’t get the leftard memo.
A person who identifies as a “Black” or “Latine” automatically makes the felony charges disappear. It’s all about the color of their skin ya know. /s
The ACLU and co. argue in their lawsuit that the Ronald McDonald House Charities' policy on criminal convictions violates this disparate impact standard, given the higher rates at which black and "Latine" individuals are convicted of crimes.
Why would Latine people be convicted of crimes at a higher rate?
Were their ancestors enslaved by the Romans?
Or do they just commit more crimes?
What's the conviction rate like if you control for sex, age and youth?
Good question. the information does not seem to be available anywhere.
The Kleptocracy harries and threatens victimless nonconformists for "offenses" involving twigs and seeds when Nixon was Caudillo de Dios. Those now keep people from moving to a different country. Once branded a breaker of "THE" law, nobody can get citizenship in caudillo client states like Ecuador or Argentina. So the charity discriminates against actual violent wrongdoers--with victims--back when Obama was okay with shooting, jailing and robbing minorities over twigs and seeds. That example helps entrench lockdowns and balk emigration. Neat, huh?
Apart from the shit that is the ACLU and their catch-22 arguments, I could see a case here for an exemption if everything is as presented with nothing hidden. Dude's crime is over a decade old and even with time served plus probation he's probably off all timed penalties and monitoring. Ultimately I don't see how any rule that is the least bit objective gets past the ACLU catch-22 of being racist.
Fuck the plaintiff, and fuck any and all of lefturd shysters involved for trying to make charity an entitlement. I hope the judge dismisses this case and orders the bailiff to bitch-slap them.
-jcr
In an unrelated story, the Ronald McDonald Charities has announced the board is evaluating ending free housing near hospitals, and creating a statistical analysis charity to review all ALCU cases over the last fifty years.
The ACLU will hand over their legal bills to the federal government and naturally they'll pay up.
Charities should be free to discriminate any way they want.
Everyone should be free to discriminate in any way they want with regard to their private property!
This is the kind of thing that eventually makes charities stop doing charity. Which is the point.
And the reason far-left groups like ACLU are so gung-ho for it is because - surprise surprise - it forces more dependence on the government instead. A "public need" is then declared, a program is forced into existence paid for by redistributed (or magically printed) money, its implementation is both 10x more expensive and less effective, its utilization is saddled with countless layers of bureaucracy, and anyone's refusal to support it (or its abuses) makes them an enemy of the people.
I don't know how folks aren't wise to this game yet. Unless they're in on it.
Read “The Tragedy of American Compassion” (Marvin Olasky).
“Marvin Olasky believes that the present American poverty programs and welfare system have failed, not only in terms of money squandered, but also in regard to human souls corrupted and national character corroded.”
“Giving was to be done not mechanically but from a spirit of genuine love; almoners of charity were to acquaint themselves personally with the poor, so as to discern better who deserved aid and who did not; moral and spiritual guidance was to be dispensed along with material aid; because men’s sinfulness often prompted them to abuse charity, donors were advised to withhold it at times; and giving was done in such a way as to strengthen and encourage family life.
“Up to the 1840s, a general consensus still prevailed regarding society’s treatment of the poor. Charity was handled mainly through private efforts. Government support of the poor was limited. The English system of indiscriminate state aid to the poor was scorned as degrading to the recipients.
” A new strain of liberalism (referred to as “Social Universalism” by Olasky), combining theological liberalism and political socialism, gained a strong following among the nation’s intellectual and literary elite. According to Olasky, this movement would become the inspiration for governmental social work programs of the 1930s and the community action programs of the 1960s. Along with these developments, a new discipline, sociology, was emerging, which would leave its strong imprint on twentieth- century work among the poor. In general, these movements looked to the government as the proper agency to bring about the needed social changes and reforms.
“These new currents of thought affected the charitable system in important ways. Professionals, rather than volunteers, would now tend to dominate. The roles of non-professionals would be reduced to that of fund-raising or giving money. This would bring an increasing social separation between donor and recipient. The old compassion (the idea of suffering with the poor) was gone. With the coming of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the private charitable system was overwhelmed, and in stepped the government in the person of FDR and his New Deal.
"The advent of the New Deal marked a definitive shift in the federal government’s role in respect to society’s needy. The cultural ethos of the work ethic, however, remained strong in America. This made it difficult for political leaders to act in terms of direct charitable relief. New Deal programs, therefore, often emphasized their temporary nature, or involved efforts to pay workers for actual work done (e.g., the Works Progress Administration).
“As late as the 1960s, the cultural bias against welfare still remained, not only among its administrators but also among its recipients. It was left to LBJ’s Great Society to breach this cultural wall. Personnel belonging to, or in some way affiliated with, its Office of Economic Opportunity as well as the private National Welfare Rights Organization radicalized the poor so as to demand their full rights or entitlements. The welfare mentality among the poor became firmly implanted, and the number of welfare recipients ballooned.
Ordered. Thank you.
Every time I hear the left hyperventilate about Trump being an authoritarian dictator, I just want to sigh. The lack of self awareness is just something else.
Try to make sense of this ridiculous "discriminatory effect" mandate. You can be criminalized by the state and effectively labeled as a bigot for enforcing a standard that doesn't have anything to do with race. Or you're somehow held responsible for things like incarceration rates that you had nothing to do with. If a charity won't accept a person who was deported multiple time in the past, it would be "discriminating" against him because most people who are deported aren't white. But who's responsible for that?
What do you call a society that would punish its people for "appearing" to be discriminatory? What about one that doesn't invite white government officials to state ran holiday parties? Remember, none of this is theoretical. It's already happening in blue states. Trump will have to be borderline Mussolini to outdo the left in this country.
Trump will have to be borderline
MussoliniStalin to outdo the leftFixed it.
Saw Biden screaming "Give me the power!" the other day.
So the ACLU is going to force a charity helping families of sick chi,dren spend its resources defending this case. It is an evil organization.
The missing part of this is what was he convicted of. Did he beat his mother, his wife, the neighbors kids? Was this "violent" crime sexual in nature? Was it just a bar fight that got out of hand? Did he fart in the general direction of a cop, kick a dog, schtup a horse, spank his kid? Seems like that could make a difference, it would at least give some dimension to the story.
It might be interesting, but has little bearing on whether it is wrong/illegal for a private charity to screen convicted felons from receiving benefits.
It might, as why they are screening out people convicted of assault is to try to ensure the safety of the other residents to the best of their ability. The circumstances of Mieles conviction might be very relevant to that goal.
Yeah, if he chased his then wife out of the house, tracked her down outside the nearest women's shelter and correcter her mistakes with his backhand it could/would be absofuckinglutely cogent whether the charitable organization decides to house him or not.
Fair game, as indicated, maybe he vomited within the field of vision of a police officer and it is completely unjustified... without the details, we can only assume the ACLU and/or Reason's slant.
I don't know if this is the same Juan Mieles, but if it is, The Ronald McDonald House absolutely made the right decision to exclude him:
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP221/221AP239.pdf
Convicted, onapleaof guilty, of thecrimeof riskof injury toachild inconnectionwith inappropriatesexual contactwiththevictim, the defendantappealedtothiscourt fromthetrialcourt’sgrantingof the state’smotionforastandingcriminalprotectiveorderpursuanttostatute (§53a-40e).Duringthedefendant’scriminalproceedings,hemadephone calls tothevictim’sgrandmother,whichpromptedthe trial court to orderthatthedefendanthavenocontactwiththevictimorherfamily.
Either Christian Britschgi was too lazy to look up the details of the crime in order to show how the nature of it didn't indicate that he'd be a threat to anybody else staying at the Ronald McDonald House, or he DID look up the details, and deliberately left them out of this article because most readers would look at the nature of the crime and say "fuck this guy, the Ronald McDonald House would have to be insane to let him stay there."
I don't believe that that is the same person. Felony assault is not the same as Risk of Injury to a Child. Also, the one in your link is still going to be on probation for many more years overseen by the State of Connecticut (so probably not living in Queens). He is required to abide by the sex offender's registry including notifying his probation officer of any changes in residency. He has been in and out of jail very recently because of breaking probation/parole rules, so that a request to consider the time elapsed since the crime and the nature of the crime would almost surely fail.
Can he vote yet? Can he buy a gun? If the Fed still considers his felony crime worthy of denying him basic rights granted to other citizens, then surely Ronald McDonald can use the same reasoning. (Don't call me Shirley).
CB
These people would destroy everything good.
Likely has to do with the need to destroy capitalism.
I'm confused. Is RMH not a private organization free to allow - or disallow - anyone they choose into their facility?
I mean, that was the argument for allowing Twitter and Facebook to maintain a regime of government-sponsored censorship. Even the ACLU was onboard with that.
This is why we can't have nice things.
A lot of my patients parents stay at RM House. I want them safe. Assault convicts are not a safe environment. And this is not a government system subject to constitution rules. NUT with the ACLU.
"blanket bans from housing based on criminal history disproportionately harm Black and Latine people"
Why do so many black and Latine people have criminal records? It's almost like they had to commit crimes to have a record. Who'd a thunk it?
If the ban applies to all felons regardless of race what’s the problem? It sounds like the ACLU thinks all criminals are black or Latino, or should I say all blacks and Latinos are criminals. Sounds pretty racist to me.
In Sloe Joe's New World Order, no good deed goes unnoticed or unpunished.