A charity opens for the purpose of helping only a subgroup of people, and actively refuses people of other groups. Is this okay?
Conversation
Replying to
It depends on what the help is, and whether there were ideological principles behind it. For example, I'd say yes to helping, let's say Korean immigrant women who have been raped. But a big NO to 'pray the gay away' and 'rebirthing' stuff. Does that make sense?
1
Replying to
My favorite (*for the "lol the balls on these guys"-quality) example of this:
3
Replying to
Nearly every charity targets specific subgroups to the exclusion of others, correct?
e.g. charity orgs that individually help veterans, alzheimer's, breast cancer, homelessness, etc. each target those subgroups.
Replying to
It is acceptable, but less than ideal, particularly depending on what lines it distinguishes. "Okay" is too vague.
2
Replying to
The term group is interesting... some see it as meaning typical discrimination, I see it as having a specific cause or illness. I've cerebral palsy, there are charities for it, and probably anything else. Curious how it seems some assume the worst.
1
Replying to
I should be able to set up a trust for the benefit of, say, members of my family, but I shouldn't get to claim charitable status for it.
Replying to
A charity is by nature helping only a subgroup. People with abundant access and resources to get food shouldn’t be eating at soup kitchens, probably.
This seems broadly acceptable. But a charity based on harming or denigrating others isn’t okay even mixed with good acts for some
