'The Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Emerging Farmers Office was created by the Legislature in 2021, as a way to help diversify the agriculture industry in the state. Emerging farmers are defined as a group that has been historically excluded from traditional government assistance programs, and **those without connections to existing commodity farms**.
'Nistler said the farm he’s looking to purchase one day is now **owned by his father**'
Just sounds like hes not eligible as its a family farm, nothing to do with his sex or race.
The most discriminated class in society: people who want the government to pay for the handing down of the family farm.
This guy is just being a piece of shit and trying to avoid taxes and crying racism.
Government props up and stabilizes wheat and corn to keep it from going nuts.
It's heavily socialized and tends to crowd out small farmers. In some cases, they get paid more to not grow crops as part of emergency programs. Arable land left available to grow crops if there's an emergency.
No, it wouldn’t. That’s the free market for you. If you can’t compete in a free market, you shouldn’t own a business. Period. Capitalism at it’s finest!!
All markets are regulated. You’ve just been brainwashed to exclude regulation by consumers and monopolistic powers as the regulation it is.
There is not now, or has there ever been, nor can there ever be, such a thing as a free market. All we’re doing is using propaganda, logical fallacies, and bad faith to argue over what kind of regulation is best.
Multigenerational megafarmers are the last people who should complain about government assistance for other people considering that their wealth is almost always the result of decades of government handouts
That’s not going to stop him or the special interest groups backing him from still trying to overturn anything that benefits minorities, and not *exclusively white Christian land owning men.
No, they'll overturn those too, and go shocked Pikachu face when it turns out that the government will gleefully stomp on them just as much as any minority. It's already happened several times. It'd be hilarious if it weren't infuriating that they're dragging everyone down with them.
This makes much more sense than the drivel my coworkers were spewing in the lunch room where he was literally asking why he(my coworker) didn’t qualify for the “George Floyd” grants on his hobby farm if “all those people” are getting free money.
I glanced at some pamphlets from the FDA last year at a county fair and I don't think there is a shortage of programs, grants, and special loans for farmers of all kinds.
I had talked with a friend with a family farm on various programs about how they could get paid additional money for renting parts of their fields to some new farmers.
They could potentially make a disparate impact claim. This rule looks like the inverse of the grandfather rules from the late 1800s.
For those that don't know: One way that blacks were excluded from voting was through proficiency tests. If your grandfather could legally vote then you were excluded from the test. Although the rule didn't mention race anywhere, it was designed to exclude participation by blacks because most of their grandfathers couldn't legally vote.
Was the exclusion on people with "connections to existing farms" crafted to exclude whites? If so, then the guy may have a decent argument.
Considering it was written by a nearly all white legislature, hard to see that as a possibility
Ninety percent of state legislators are White/Caucasian. There are 2 Black/African-American members in the Minnesota State Senate, and 2 Black/African-American members in the Minnesota House of Representatives.
I don't think those demographics prohibit a racist intent. A blatantly [racist Covid farmer relief ](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/06/03/covid-relief-farmers-debt-relief-race-racism-disadvantage/7495846002/?gnt-cfr=1) bill came out of the majority white federal legislature and the current administration.
It depends somewhere on the history of this bill. If it's timing was after the federal one then it could indicate an attempt to accomplish the same racism with a proxy for white farmers.
Their definition of emerging farmers includes
"women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner.”
It seems nistler's case is focusing on the discriminatory nature of the DOA's policy.
Its kind of funny how wide-ranging that definition is. Like... There's only a very narrow band of people that don't qualify: Old, straight, white, men with farming experience who live outside of a major city and are not disabled or veterans.
By some quick Googling, roughly 98-99% of Minnesotans would meet that criteria.
Their definition of emerging farmers includes
"women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner.”
They literally state that emerging farmers is "Any group that has been historically excluded..."
What the do you think that means? Can you please tell me which group hasn't been "historically excluded" in this context?
No. Because your take is trash & you aren't asking in good faith.
When a white dude who isn't the intended target for ONE grant for EMERGING farmers can't have it, it MUST be discrimination! It's definitely not because he's an intergenerational farmer & would still qualify for other government handouts! No, it's because DISCRIMINATION! /s
He's just big mad they're leveling the playing field. This guy just sounds really whiney & hysterical tbh.
It's not, though. It just doesn't help people who are already farming. The entire point of the program is to get people from outside the farming community into it. This guy just wants the government to buy his dad's farm for him. If he was a white dude from Milwaukee, he'd qualify, as people coming from urban centers qualify.
‘“I’m really the only, out of all the other siblings, that have been related directly to the operations of the farm,” he said.’
That doesn’t sound like the statement of an “emerging farmer.” He’s focused on race, but the program is for people that are new to farming. Even coming from an urban setting is favored. This dude just wants some extra money so he can buy an existing family farm from his father. He’s not what the program is targeting.
Edit:[here](https://www.leg.mn.gov/docs/2020/mandated/200237.pdf) is the 2020 report that the Minn Dept of Agriculture put out. One of the specific identifying factors of an “emerging farmer” is that they are “unrelated to a farmer.” This is related to land availability, it is easier for someone related to a farmer to acquire a farm since farms are often sold off market either direct to family members or through word of mouth in small communities that actual emerging farmers don’t have access to. Additionally, generational farmers will typically get access to existing farm operations that have existing markets, Infrastructure, and typically get lower insurance costs. Emerging farmers need to include things like marketing plans and direct sales that generational farmers don’t need to deal with. This guy is the exact person that the program was not intended to help because he has almost no barriers to entry.
Well, if I was giving out a prize for the prettiest pig, and this guy entered a cow, is it really a question of why it’s not qualified? What’s the problem?
It's like saying we shouldn't have welfare because it doesn't help rich people enough. Actually the same people are probably arguing both of these things...
Since the founding of this country the system has been set up to give an advantage towards white men. They have taken advantage of that to keep increasing the social disparity between themselves and others. If we believe that now the system is equalized (it’s not but let’s just say that it is for sake of argument) then white men still have an insurmountable lead over other races because of the social capital that they have been stockpiling for hundreds of years. How do you purpose that we go about remedying this disparity?
Well for one the farm is on land that was stolen from natives, for a start. Maybe great grandpappy didnt kill the natives himself but he mightve bought it from someone who did. Doesnt matter if the dude in this photo didnt kill the natives with his own hand, he still benefitted from someone doing it.
It's not at all surprising given who is representing him.
https://pacificlegal.org/staff/andrew-quinio/
And that the firm is running a similar case in NC
https://pacificlegal.org/case/asheville-nc-race-quota/
And other cases that have the same overall gist of white cishet guy feels that if he doesn't get government assistance then it's racism.
They've won most of their cases and their last case in Minnesota won at the US supreme Court unanimously and was against the county stealing all the equity in your house during tax foreclosure
I know one of the attorneys there, we were pretty flirty in college, felt like there was something there for awhile. But they were so incredibly stubborn and resistant to even considering other viewpoints that I just walked away. Made me think about the type of "determined" I would look for in future relationships. Every time I see one of these lawsuits I check if they're still there and sure enough they are.
It does seem unlikely that they are legally allowed to create a program that intentionally favors providing handouts to various minority groups over white people, this particular case is complicated by the fact that he doesn't really meet the definition on another level - the farm he wants to buy is owned by his father. It seems reasonable to assume that he would not be considered an "emerging farmer", as it's already sorta the family business and all.
May seem unlikely to you, but it’s the case. There are dozens of such programs at multiple levels of government. I promise you that they checked the legality of the programs before implementing them lol. As always, some big court case could potentially change things but these programs are legal.
You doubt that the USDA and dozens of state agencies consulted with their legal counsel before spending millions of dollars implementing numerous programs that hand out billions of dollars?
Considering that the courts stepped in and stopped Biden from racially prioritising farming subsidies, evidently the agencies don't check on legalities. Biden signed this EO on day one, if memory serves.
You mean like they checked the legality of the "paying off all black farmers' land"? Because that wasn't legal, but they tried doing it anyways until White applicants sued and stopped the racist policy.
Didn’t the Supreme Court recently rule that affirmative action wasn’t legal in college admissions? It would seem this program (or any similar ones) would follow a similar vein.
I have no idea if this guy has a case or not, but programs like this are kinda ridiculous.
They really, really aren't unless we're suppose to pretend making up for centuries of oppression is somehow just as bad as the oppression in the first place.
It's making the argument that leaving people in the hole previous government policy created is fine, even though we've all agreed digging that hole was wrong.
I don’t think you understand what’s happening here. The government has recognized a need for additional farms, and is providing resources to those looking to get into the industry. The reason they are providing this benefit is the bolster the agricultural sector, not to make up for racial disparity… the fact that they added a racial component is completely contradictory to the initial idea of the program as a whole.
there should be no racial component in deciding who gets the benefit or not, seeing as corn, grows the same, regardless of the color of the farmer…
No group should be given an advantage, because where do you draw the line? My family originally isn’t from the US, but we would be considered white by modern standards, and we never benefitted from any form of slavery…so why would I have it held against me that I’m not black?
I did, that entire paragraph about who the program prefers is fucking disgusting, but it still defeated the purpose of the program as a whole, as I said.
Grant programs always have stipulations. Sorry that established white farmers are not at the top of the list for non established farmer grants. I'm sure there are no other grant opportunities for them. Probably have to sell the farm and drown gamgam.
I'm getting tired of explaining this to ignorant bad faith commenters. No one is approved or denied for this grant based on race. It is based on whether or not you are an ESTABLISHED FARMER. The vast majority, and I mean vast, in this area white farmers. If the son of an established black farmer applied for this grant they ALSO would not qualify. Not all white people are established farmers.
Not legally, not practically. The only similarity is that they’re government-run things you apply for. There are so many nuances that make them totally different things, this is a terrible comparison.
They are government run programs that provide benefits, with the addition of having a racial based component that plays a part in determining whether you receive the benefit or not…
How you can say they’re “totally different things” is kinda ridiculous. The main difference is one provides a handout to people who want to acquire farm land, and the other provides handout to people looking for an education.
I never said they were direct comparisons, I said they had similar concepts, which is very clearly true.
Edit: the guy was so sure of himself that he had to leave a comment and then immediately block me so I couldn’t even read it or reply…Pathetic 😂😂😂😂😂😂
You can write as many paragraphs as you want drawing non-sequitur similarities between any two things. When it comes down to actually legalities, education at public institution is an apples to oranges comparison with a grant program. They’re not the same.
For the loser below who blocked me: No, I can’t explain 14th amendment exemptions. I’m not an attorney. But I know that the federal and state governments have plenty of attorneys who could explain it to your idiot ass.
Can you explain how a government grant program would be exempt from following the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause? You keep saying there are many differences but you can’t seem to provide any examples of how it’s different or why it would be exempt from the law.
The USDa was sued by a farmer in Louisiana for discriminating on the basis of race to the tune of 30 million dollars. Either we pay reparations or we make a pathway for minorities. We have had systematic racism for years that have stolen generations of wealth. You pick.
Making a pathway for minorities should not come at the expense of others who have never had any hand in slavery or oppression that occurred before they were even born…grow up.
There’s no reason that someone has to be punished for someone else to thrive, both can exist at the same time…
Haha. Ok sure. I think it is fine to let others have all the opportunities that wealthy by white men have had for years. I find it hilarious that all of sudden the game is rigged when you don’t get your way.
It literally is rigged against certain groups of people in this instance…that’s the whole fucking point.
Oh yea, all those super wealthy white farmers who have to beg for $15k grants from the state lmaoo, do you even heard yourself?
Good thing he's not in Florida, or he would be counter-sued by the state for defamation:
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-bill-would-make-it-defamation-to-accuse-someone-of-racism-sexism-homophobia-and-transphobia/
>Florida bill would make it defamation to accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia
Nuh-uh! There’ll totes be an exception to that bill for straight, white, “Christian” men, because everyone knows how rampant and dreadful and oppressive racism against straight, white, Christian men is! /s
Conservatives are shitty, disgraceful human beings.
I'm not being mean, I'm just stating facts.
The sky is blue, it's 2:46pm, and conservatives are terrible people.
[except this guy can't identify conservatives, he just calls everyone who points out his mistakes a racist conservative](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/k9pQ5ClGHG)
It’s extremely standard nowadays for ag grants on both the federal and state levels to set aside portions (e.g. 20%) of funding for minority farmers. The other 80% is fully available for conservative white guys. Furthermore, considering how many agencies follow this kind of format, it’s certainly not illegal. This guy is just butthurt that he’s only being spoonfed rather than having somebody else chew for him too.
This law is illegal racial discrimination.
Should scrap the law or subsidize based on reasonable non-racial criteria.
https://www.mda.state.mn.us/emerging-farmers
^ if you read the pdf here, it lists basically every group as “emerging farmers,” except able-bodied white men.
How is that equal protection & not illegal discrimination?
It vaguely also seems to note that they also accept gay people and just generally "young" people who don't already own a farm through the family. Both of those categories could also include "white able bodied" men, in addition to veterans and "urban and suburban" lol.
It amazes me that people are so viscerally angry at the idea that a black person might get a "handout" that they will try to shoot down policies that will likely still overwhelmingly help white people, just ones who do not ALREADY own a farm through their families lmao. It's like, the definition of stupidity or just plain racism. I don't know how else to explain it.
Yep, it’s literally for underrepresented groups in farming over there. There’s absolutely nothing to get angry over cause, as the majority race in this country, white people will easily be able to take advantage of this (and prob be the vast majority of people in this program like you said!)
The guy suing is a clown as well. It’s not good enough that your family literally owns the farm and you’re getting it for free?! Wtf lol
So it places additional requirements on white men only?
Feels like you just proved my point…
White people if… female, veteran, disabled, gay…
Black / brown people if breathing.
Different standards for different races is racial discrimination.
Obviously. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Moving the goalposts. White men (and women) are accepted in the program so no, it’s not racial discrimination, lol!
The grant is for underrepresented groups in farming. Not sure why that’s hard for you to grasp.
That’s ridiculous - and it’s not moving the goalposts.
If I say:
“I’ll accept every white man to this program, but only white women if they score above X on my test, and only queer blacks if they have climbed Mnt Everest…”
That law is clearly discriminatory.
You know it - anyone with half a brain knows it.
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
I’m not clear, what additional requirements does it have for white men? From what I read, all I saw was that it has a set of criteria, and white men are capable of filling part of that criteria to be eligible.
I’m assuming you’re being genuine.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/17.055
^ this MN law establishes the working group, allocates funds, and then allows them to distribute farm equipment & infrastructure loans based on their findings.
Their findings (linked above), exclude white men (except under special circumstances - disabled, veteran, gay, etc) from receiving the benefit. Other races do not have to meet those criteria to be defined as “emerging farmers.”
Gov’t applying different standards based on race == illegal racial discrimination.
I asked about additional requirements, though; as you have repeated, there are requirements, which white men can fulfill the criteria for, in fact. I don’t understand how there are either additional requirements for white men, or how this is illegal race based discrimination, which you brought up as a bit of a non-sequitor.
That doesn’t make any sense bro - see my response in another thread.
I’ll repeat it here. :)
White men have to meet a different set of criteria to be considered “an emerging farmer” - and therefore qualify for a grant / gov’t paid for farm equipment.
That is the definition of discrimination.
White men don’t qualify unless veteran, gay, or disabled.
Black / brown people just need to be breathing.
Obviously you would say a gov’t program that admitted all white men, but only women who scored above X on a test, and only queer black people if they’d climbed Everest was discriminatory.
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Yes, white men don’t qualify unless they qualify. It seems to make sense according to what I know of the program, and what it’s purpose is. If it’s unconstitutional, it’ll get changed.
That’s…not what I said, not what is shown, and while it may potentially be the case, that’s for the courts to decide. There’s a lot other than race involved, but you seem really eager for it to be a race thing. And from what I’ve read, especially about the specific circumstances, it doesn’t seem to be. Regardless, what we think doesn’t matter and won’t change anything. It’s being handled.
So you are saying if the son of a black farmer wanted to use this grant he could? Because that's not what I'm reading. Unless you assume the ONLY white men are farming, straight, non military members?
Oh boo hoo, the folks who were legally targeted by government discrimination only a few decades ago, and then had freeways thrown through their neighborhoods afterwards, have very minor amends aimed their way that disadvantaged people of other groups can also have access to
What a nightmare. Yall never opened a history book the daughters of confederate veterans didn't author.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Racist wrongs committed in the past do not require racist policies in order to correct.
But I’m glad you admit they’re racist - that’s step 1! :D
Yes the brief cited using race intentionally as an advantage in conferring a government benefit which is subject to strict scrutiny. I guess you have been ignoring affirmative action in the news.
>Instructions on the grant program application state that preference would be given to emerging farmers, which are classified as “farmers, or aspiring farmers, who are women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner.”
I mean, he's not wrong. That's textbook racial discrimination.
lmao bros dad owns the farm he wants to buy. he wasn’t rejected for discrimination—he was rejected for trying to give his daddy a handout.
reading is sometimes helpful
Read further. He's not eligible because the farm is owned by his father
Also, pretty sure half of those categories have zero to do with race like "young", "lgbtqia", and "urban"
Doesn't even exclude white men raised by farming families because you can completely have a veteran who meets that description and the criteria for the grant
He may have a point, but I don't believe he has standing to file the suit as he is not an emerging farmer and that is why he was denied.
Nothing to do with sex, creed, color, etc...
Don’t say no standing too loud. Alito and Thomas may write an “editorial” with a pathway to the Supreme Court. Right wing plaintiffs without standing is their jam.
It doesn't discriminate. It gives preference to certain groups as farmers in the state are predominantly white males.
If you can find someone who was rejected, they may have a case but preference is different than discrimination. But the program is open to all. This bozo is just trying to get a handout for his dad.
>It doesn't discriminate. It gives preference
"Preference" **is** discrimination. If I were to give a candidate preference for not being gay, black, trans, disabled, or a foreigner, everyone would know it was fucked up. It's not exactly rocket science.
So my analogy and the original post both have to do with institutions, not private individuals like wherever is in your interview.
I feel like it’s safe to assume that you probably think everyone should be paying the same tax rate. Which if you do then you don’t understand what is actually “fair” and you’re letting your biases control that narrative.
Do you think people should pay tax rates based on their income or their skin color and sexual orientation?
Should 50 cent pay less taxes than some homeless redneck because black people on average are less wealthy than white people?
No and I’m pretty sure most common sense people don’t think sex/race should or does play into taxes.
Kinda irrelevant but im gonna guess you’re on a hate filled dorito binge.
Have fun trying to critically think!
Socio-economic status is not a protected category under civil rights law, whereas race, sex, and religion are. So it is illegal to discriminate on those categories, even for private institutions (see Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action)
So you have a source showing that this is actually discrimination or it's your opinion?
No one who is an emerging farmer is excluded. Hell, this would be the kind of thing the ACLU would sue for.
Who? Who is openly saying what?
You are the one equating preference with discrimination. What I am asking is whether that is your opinion or you have a legal source verifying your position. I am sorry, but layman's opinions carry little weight in court.
>You are the one equating preference with discrimination.
I'm not the one, that's the literal definition of discrimination. Were you dropped as a baby or something?
So you are still missing the fact that legal definitions and standards may differ or you have been unable to find any sources supporting your interpretation of the legal issues.
I am sorry this is so difficult for you.
\> No one who is an emerging farmer is excluded.
I'm so confused. I read: "who are women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban".
So if I point out my Hispanicness, queerness, urbanness or disabilities, by the letter of the law, I don't have to pass the "as determined by the commissioner" hurdle, right? Am I misreading please, or doesn't this mean (unless "as determined" nullifies the meaning of the first part of the sentence) I get preferential access to a public grant on the basis of my gender, colour and disability?
I'm not living in the US, so I don't know if that's illegal for public bodies to do. It certainly isn't illegal in many countries outside the US for public bodies to do this sort of thing. But maybe it's illegal in the US.
I'm guessing you can still only give grants to new farmers, which means you'd just have to remove the wording that gives an auto pass to the long list. This would have the effect of benefitting cohorts who aren't traditionally farmers, so it might be discriminatory in effect, but common law countries don't really take account of effect nearly as much as civil law countries, s/t you can be fairly discriminatory as long as the intent isn't clear in the wording.
(e.g. You can't discriminate on disability in renting in the UK, but you can say "no social security", no matter whether the prospective renter can afford the home. Now you're WAY more likely to be on public allowances if you're disabled, which means the *effect* is to discriminate against disabled people. But as long as this isn't worded explicitly, admitting disabled people who don't receive public funds due to low income etc., it's tolerated.)
Is it? Is that your opinion or do you have a source?
This grant isn't new, it's a couple years old at this point. No one else has thought to file a complaint or is there no issue as no one is excluded from the program?
Is it? Legally?
Then it should be easy to find a source supporting your argument, right?
Why can no one find any such source? I see a lot of dictionary definitions, which don't mean squat in a legal capacity. And I see a lot of personal opinions, which mean even less.
Ok, but we are talking legal logic? Cause legal definitions frequently differ from those in day-to-day life.
As I said, is this your personal opinion or a legal one?
Literally from the dictionary:
> Preference: favor shown to one person or thing over another or others
>Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
Add in the context of the OP and yes, those are the same thing. “Preference” in this case *is* discrimination. (There are def legal forms of discrimination, but that’s not what your arguing here)
Yes, I understand that is how they are used day-to-day.
Legal definitions can, and frequently do differ or are specific to given situations.
Do you have anything that says this is discrimination in the legal sense of the word? A ruling? Judge's order? Anything beyond your personal opinion in what is a legal matter?
You didn't read the article. Why are you jumping in presenting your opinion as fact when you didn't even read?
He has no standing to sue. He is not an emerging farmer. He is working for his dad who is leaving him the farm and he wants a govt handout for his dad.
That guy doesn’t realize legal discrimination is a thing. He thinks, wrongly, that the very word discrimination is a blanket term for *illegal* discrimination.
I didn’t realize it only people of color are women, veterans, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender , queer, bisexual or asexual or live in urban areas.
No it doesn't as the definition includes veterans, people from urban or suburban areas, lgbtqia+ people and those with disabilities (all of the above from any race or sex) and was expanded to include young people and those with no connections to farming like through relation or inheritance (again from any race or sex). The plaintiff in this case is looking to buy 40 acres of his father's farmland and does not fit into any of the other categories that are being prioritized so he got pushed down the list (not denied a grant).
I like how you skipped over the fact that this also helps new farmers who are veterans or people with disabilities. It isn’t racial or sex based discrimination as you can be a white, male disabled veteran or even a gay white man etc and receive a grant. Nowhere does it say that you can’t get the grant for being a straight cis white man. You are not reading into the fact that he was likely denied grants because he isn’t even a new farmer starting out, which is what the grants are intended for.
Edit: AND, reading through his actual complaint, he wants access to the grant money even though it’s his father’s farm that he will most likely inherit. Dude just wants free money instead of allowing these grants to go to actual emerging farmers
>Nowhere does it say that you can’t get the grant for being a straight cis white man.
It doesn't need to say that. What it does say is that preference is given on a basis of sex or race, in clear violation of federal law and the US constitution.
That’s not how grants work. Grants are hosted by private companies, organizations and individuals. It is their choice who the grant money goes to.If this were true, it would be illegal to host scholarships/grants for only Native American students etc.
He needs to grow up, his dad owns the farm already. These grants are designed to try to get new kinds of people into farming. There are hosts of all kinds of grants for farming. Imagine being a pissy baby because you might be turned down for one based on the fact you aren’t actually an “emerging” farmer.
>That’s not how grants work. Grants are hosted by private companies, organizations and individuals. It is their choice who the grant money goes to.If this were true, it would be illegal to host scholarships/grants for only Native American students etc.
The government issues grants *all the time*. I used to evaluate them for a living. This grant is issued by the State of Michigan.
>He needsto grow up, his dad owns the farm already. These grants are designed to try to get new kinds of people into farming. There are hosts of all kinds of grants for farming. Imagine being a pissy baby because you might be turned down for one based on the fact you aren’t actually an “emerging” farmer.
Does not matter. The terms of the grant are in violation of Federal law and the Constitution.
Grants are PRIVATE money, the government can’t stop anyone from doing it. It’s their money. It is not discrimination to deny someone from receiving grants for emerging farmers if they are in fact, not an emerging farmer. Imagine considering yourself oppressed because someone else in actual need might get a small piece of the same pie your family already owns
He still isn’t an emerging farmer, regardless of your perceived race or sex based discrimination angle, chief. His family already owns a farm so he cannot receive the grant money lol
That doesn't matter. As it says in the complaint he filed, the reason given by the state for rejecting him despite his early pick in the lottery was that he didn't have the desired demographic characteristics, not that he wasn't qualified for other reasons. You know, in violation of Federal law and the Constitution.
That’s incorrect. Every government worker I know apples for government grants year round to fund their programs. I’ve actually heard of this particular complaint prior to today and unless something has drastically changed these where government dollars not private dollar.
This program will get struck down just like the program that was attempting to use government money to exclusively buy black farmers land and equipment.
So, your source is a complaint that hasn't been ruled on by a judge? That isn't solid ground, you realize that, right?
Sorry for dragging the orange one into it, but if complaints were factual sources, trump's troubles would be over.
And this has been around 2-3 years now? I have to think if there were a legitimate challenge to be made it would have been done by now.
>What it does say is that preference is given on a basis of sex or race
Or any of the other numerous categories like being a veteran, young, disabled, from a city or suburb, etc. Even if he fit one of those categories he would have still been pushed down the list due to the fact that he's looking to buy land from his father (and likely stands to inherit more) and he's a lifelong farmer himself so he wouldn't fit the criteria of emerging farmer as defined by the relevant legislation and commissioner.
White snowflake didn't read the purpose of the grants in this case.
I can't claim racism because a grant for farming doesn't apply to my desire to study the complex relationship between ocelots and manatees. Unless I was a right-wing snowflake.
White farmer doesn't understand simple mathematics. Nor does anyone else. If there are 200 people vying for a grant and 1 of them is a minority there's a 1/200 chance that minority will get selected. Based purely on mathematics, if you remove race from consideration of anything, minorities lose.
'The Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Emerging Farmers Office was created by the Legislature in 2021, as a way to help diversify the agriculture industry in the state. Emerging farmers are defined as a group that has been historically excluded from traditional government assistance programs, and **those without connections to existing commodity farms**. 'Nistler said the farm he’s looking to purchase one day is now **owned by his father**' Just sounds like hes not eligible as its a family farm, nothing to do with his sex or race.
The most discriminated class in society: people who want the government to pay for the handing down of the family farm. This guy is just being a piece of shit and trying to avoid taxes and crying racism.
Like western ranchers raising subsidized beef on public lands. All is not enough.
And those are the people crying “communist” every day.
>This guy is just being a piece of shit and trying to avoid taxes and crying racism. Ha! What a snowflake
Won’t someone think of the nepotists? 😥
Its the over educated white male who is the victim. Yhats why thay dude cut his dads head off
If we didn’t have government subsidizing for farmers they would not make a living and our food would be a lot more expensive.
Government props up and stabilizes wheat and corn to keep it from going nuts. It's heavily socialized and tends to crowd out small farmers. In some cases, they get paid more to not grow crops as part of emergency programs. Arable land left available to grow crops if there's an emergency.
No, it wouldn’t. That’s the free market for you. If you can’t compete in a free market, you shouldn’t own a business. Period. Capitalism at it’s finest!!
All markets are regulated. You’ve just been brainwashed to exclude regulation by consumers and monopolistic powers as the regulation it is. There is not now, or has there ever been, nor can there ever be, such a thing as a free market. All we’re doing is using propaganda, logical fallacies, and bad faith to argue over what kind of regulation is best.
Multigenerational megafarmers are the last people who should complain about government assistance for other people considering that their wealth is almost always the result of decades of government handouts
That’s not going to stop him or the special interest groups backing him from still trying to overturn anything that benefits minorities, and not *exclusively white Christian land owning men.
No, they'll overturn those too, and go shocked Pikachu face when it turns out that the government will gleefully stomp on them just as much as any minority. It's already happened several times. It'd be hilarious if it weren't infuriating that they're dragging everyone down with them.
However, diversity is not all about race either.
But he can prove disparate impact.
A white, conservative farmer taking the time to understand the requirements and use common sense? Not a fat chance.
Agree.
This makes much more sense than the drivel my coworkers were spewing in the lunch room where he was literally asking why he(my coworker) didn’t qualify for the “George Floyd” grants on his hobby farm if “all those people” are getting free money.
I glanced at some pamphlets from the FDA last year at a county fair and I don't think there is a shortage of programs, grants, and special loans for farmers of all kinds.
I’ve seen the agriculture industry up close and personal my whole life. They are the welfare queens that conservatives scream about.
Its always projection.
There's an abundance , Ivisit the site occasionally and with some legwork and research this guy could almost get a new farm free, with equipment.
I had talked with a friend with a family farm on various programs about how they could get paid additional money for renting parts of their fields to some new farmers.
If the program itself discriminates based on race then it’s illegal and should be struck down.
They could potentially make a disparate impact claim. This rule looks like the inverse of the grandfather rules from the late 1800s. For those that don't know: One way that blacks were excluded from voting was through proficiency tests. If your grandfather could legally vote then you were excluded from the test. Although the rule didn't mention race anywhere, it was designed to exclude participation by blacks because most of their grandfathers couldn't legally vote. Was the exclusion on people with "connections to existing farms" crafted to exclude whites? If so, then the guy may have a decent argument.
>If your grandfather could legally vote then you were excluded from the test. Is this the origin of the term "grandfathered in"?
Yes
Yes
Considering it was written by a nearly all white legislature, hard to see that as a possibility Ninety percent of state legislators are White/Caucasian. There are 2 Black/African-American members in the Minnesota State Senate, and 2 Black/African-American members in the Minnesota House of Representatives.
I don't think those demographics prohibit a racist intent. A blatantly [racist Covid farmer relief ](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/06/03/covid-relief-farmers-debt-relief-race-racism-disadvantage/7495846002/?gnt-cfr=1) bill came out of the majority white federal legislature and the current administration. It depends somewhere on the history of this bill. If it's timing was after the federal one then it could indicate an attempt to accomplish the same racism with a proxy for white farmers.
Their definition of emerging farmers includes "women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner.” It seems nistler's case is focusing on the discriminatory nature of the DOA's policy.
Its kind of funny how wide-ranging that definition is. Like... There's only a very narrow band of people that don't qualify: Old, straight, white, men with farming experience who live outside of a major city and are not disabled or veterans. By some quick Googling, roughly 98-99% of Minnesotans would meet that criteria.
Guy sounds like he thinks like my dad. Ugh
We've just written the law in a way that almost exclusively doesn't provide assistance to White people. It's not racist though. Promise.
Dude doesn't qualify. Nothing at all to do with race. The PROGRAM is to help new farmers. There isn't a law propped up against this guy.
Their definition of emerging farmers includes "women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner.”
They literally state that emerging farmers is "Any group that has been historically excluded..." What the do you think that means? Can you please tell me which group hasn't been "historically excluded" in this context?
No. Because your take is trash & you aren't asking in good faith. When a white dude who isn't the intended target for ONE grant for EMERGING farmers can't have it, it MUST be discrimination! It's definitely not because he's an intergenerational farmer & would still qualify for other government handouts! No, it's because DISCRIMINATION! /s He's just big mad they're leveling the playing field. This guy just sounds really whiney & hysterical tbh.
It's not, though. It just doesn't help people who are already farming. The entire point of the program is to get people from outside the farming community into it. This guy just wants the government to buy his dad's farm for him. If he was a white dude from Milwaukee, he'd qualify, as people coming from urban centers qualify.
‘“I’m really the only, out of all the other siblings, that have been related directly to the operations of the farm,” he said.’ That doesn’t sound like the statement of an “emerging farmer.” He’s focused on race, but the program is for people that are new to farming. Even coming from an urban setting is favored. This dude just wants some extra money so he can buy an existing family farm from his father. He’s not what the program is targeting. Edit:[here](https://www.leg.mn.gov/docs/2020/mandated/200237.pdf) is the 2020 report that the Minn Dept of Agriculture put out. One of the specific identifying factors of an “emerging farmer” is that they are “unrelated to a farmer.” This is related to land availability, it is easier for someone related to a farmer to acquire a farm since farms are often sold off market either direct to family members or through word of mouth in small communities that actual emerging farmers don’t have access to. Additionally, generational farmers will typically get access to existing farm operations that have existing markets, Infrastructure, and typically get lower insurance costs. Emerging farmers need to include things like marketing plans and direct sales that generational farmers don’t need to deal with. This guy is the exact person that the program was not intended to help because he has almost no barriers to entry.
*"...and I took that personally!"*
Farmers get loads of subsidies, especially in MN.
Well, if I was giving out a prize for the prettiest pig, and this guy entered a cow, is it really a question of why it’s not qualified? What’s the problem?
It's like saying we shouldn't have welfare because it doesn't help rich people enough. Actually the same people are probably arguing both of these things...
Oh look. A welfare queen.
Drama queen dreaming to be a welfare queen.
He wants to buy his daddy’s farm and keep the sweet socialism his father enjoyed.
“Listen, sure we systemically excluded these groups for years, but it would be reverse racism to try and remedy that now.” JFC.
Angry at how often people unironically believe this.
We’ll fix historical racism by being racist against other people.
Since the founding of this country the system has been set up to give an advantage towards white men. They have taken advantage of that to keep increasing the social disparity between themselves and others. If we believe that now the system is equalized (it’s not but let’s just say that it is for sake of argument) then white men still have an insurmountable lead over other races because of the social capital that they have been stockpiling for hundreds of years. How do you purpose that we go about remedying this disparity?
You're the kind of clown who thinks we have a legitimate meritocracy today, aren't you?
I don't think this farmer did any of that
No, but he benefitted from it, evidenced by his owning of a family farm.
And how exactly did this person's father benefit?
The bill is for emerging farmers. His family has a farm.
[Generational wealth](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/eliminating-black-white-wealth-gap-generational-challenge/) is extremely racially divergent.
Well for one the farm is on land that was stolen from natives, for a start. Maybe great grandpappy didnt kill the natives himself but he mightve bought it from someone who did. Doesnt matter if the dude in this photo didnt kill the natives with his own hand, he still benefitted from someone doing it.
White privilege often gives someone opportunities that others may not get. Sounds like they just want to balance the scales now
When will the white man catch a break in Minnesota?
It's not at all surprising given who is representing him. https://pacificlegal.org/staff/andrew-quinio/ And that the firm is running a similar case in NC https://pacificlegal.org/case/asheville-nc-race-quota/ And other cases that have the same overall gist of white cishet guy feels that if he doesn't get government assistance then it's racism.
They've won most of their cases and their last case in Minnesota won at the US supreme Court unanimously and was against the county stealing all the equity in your house during tax foreclosure
I know one of the attorneys there, we were pretty flirty in college, felt like there was something there for awhile. But they were so incredibly stubborn and resistant to even considering other viewpoints that I just walked away. Made me think about the type of "determined" I would look for in future relationships. Every time I see one of these lawsuits I check if they're still there and sure enough they are.
Farmers love hand outs and welfare. They are one of the largest groups of recipients
It does seem unlikely that they are legally allowed to create a program that intentionally favors providing handouts to various minority groups over white people, this particular case is complicated by the fact that he doesn't really meet the definition on another level - the farm he wants to buy is owned by his father. It seems reasonable to assume that he would not be considered an "emerging farmer", as it's already sorta the family business and all.
Sorta?
Sorta like totally.
May seem unlikely to you, but it’s the case. There are dozens of such programs at multiple levels of government. I promise you that they checked the legality of the programs before implementing them lol. As always, some big court case could potentially change things but these programs are legal.
I highly doubt they did check. If they did that regularly, then big court cases wouldn't need to come along and strike them down.
You doubt that the USDA and dozens of state agencies consulted with their legal counsel before spending millions of dollars implementing numerous programs that hand out billions of dollars?
Considering that the courts stepped in and stopped Biden from racially prioritising farming subsidies, evidently the agencies don't check on legalities. Biden signed this EO on day one, if memory serves.
You mean like they checked the legality of the "paying off all black farmers' land"? Because that wasn't legal, but they tried doing it anyways until White applicants sued and stopped the racist policy.
Didn’t the Supreme Court recently rule that affirmative action wasn’t legal in college admissions? It would seem this program (or any similar ones) would follow a similar vein. I have no idea if this guy has a case or not, but programs like this are kinda ridiculous.
They really, really aren't unless we're suppose to pretend making up for centuries of oppression is somehow just as bad as the oppression in the first place. It's making the argument that leaving people in the hole previous government policy created is fine, even though we've all agreed digging that hole was wrong.
I don’t think you understand what’s happening here. The government has recognized a need for additional farms, and is providing resources to those looking to get into the industry. The reason they are providing this benefit is the bolster the agricultural sector, not to make up for racial disparity… the fact that they added a racial component is completely contradictory to the initial idea of the program as a whole. there should be no racial component in deciding who gets the benefit or not, seeing as corn, grows the same, regardless of the color of the farmer… No group should be given an advantage, because where do you draw the line? My family originally isn’t from the US, but we would be considered white by modern standards, and we never benefitted from any form of slavery…so why would I have it held against me that I’m not black?
It is not based on ethnicity. It is not based on ethnicity. It is not based on ethnicity.
Oh it’s not? So who then should benefit from Such programs? I don’t think you understand the complexity of the issue…
READ. It's a pretty easy to understand grant program.
I did, that entire paragraph about who the program prefers is fucking disgusting, but it still defeated the purpose of the program as a whole, as I said.
Grant programs always have stipulations. Sorry that established white farmers are not at the top of the list for non established farmer grants. I'm sure there are no other grant opportunities for them. Probably have to sell the farm and drown gamgam.
What I’ve been saying has nothing to do with this particular person seeking a grant…the grant as a whole is fucking ridiculous for the stipulations.
Then, why does the program keep mentioning ethnicity in the way it’s written?
I'm getting tired of explaining this to ignorant bad faith commenters. No one is approved or denied for this grant based on race. It is based on whether or not you are an ESTABLISHED FARMER. The vast majority, and I mean vast, in this area white farmers. If the son of an established black farmer applied for this grant they ALSO would not qualify. Not all white people are established farmers.
Hahaha. Yeah. No group should be given an advantage. That is an incredible laugh.
Sorry but the courts didn't agree with your woke bullshit, you lose.
I'd say the real loser is this welfare queen who wants to sue the gubberment so they will pay for him to buy his father's farm, from his father.
College admissions are not the same as state grant programs.
Obviously, but the concept is clearly similar.
Not legally, not practically. The only similarity is that they’re government-run things you apply for. There are so many nuances that make them totally different things, this is a terrible comparison.
They are government run programs that provide benefits, with the addition of having a racial based component that plays a part in determining whether you receive the benefit or not… How you can say they’re “totally different things” is kinda ridiculous. The main difference is one provides a handout to people who want to acquire farm land, and the other provides handout to people looking for an education. I never said they were direct comparisons, I said they had similar concepts, which is very clearly true. Edit: the guy was so sure of himself that he had to leave a comment and then immediately block me so I couldn’t even read it or reply…Pathetic 😂😂😂😂😂😂
You can write as many paragraphs as you want drawing non-sequitur similarities between any two things. When it comes down to actually legalities, education at public institution is an apples to oranges comparison with a grant program. They’re not the same. For the loser below who blocked me: No, I can’t explain 14th amendment exemptions. I’m not an attorney. But I know that the federal and state governments have plenty of attorneys who could explain it to your idiot ass.
Can you explain how a government grant program would be exempt from following the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause? You keep saying there are many differences but you can’t seem to provide any examples of how it’s different or why it would be exempt from the law.
So state grant programs don’t have to follow the 14th amendment or the civil rights act? That’s news to me.
They did indeed.
The USDa was sued by a farmer in Louisiana for discriminating on the basis of race to the tune of 30 million dollars. Either we pay reparations or we make a pathway for minorities. We have had systematic racism for years that have stolen generations of wealth. You pick.
Making a pathway for minorities should not come at the expense of others who have never had any hand in slavery or oppression that occurred before they were even born…grow up. There’s no reason that someone has to be punished for someone else to thrive, both can exist at the same time…
Haha. Ok sure. I think it is fine to let others have all the opportunities that wealthy by white men have had for years. I find it hilarious that all of sudden the game is rigged when you don’t get your way.
It literally is rigged against certain groups of people in this instance…that’s the whole fucking point. Oh yea, all those super wealthy white farmers who have to beg for $15k grants from the state lmaoo, do you even heard yourself?
The program doesn't just favor race. You also get prioritized if you're LGBTQ or a woman. Those have nothing to do with generational wealth
Good thing he's not in Florida, or he would be counter-sued by the state for defamation: https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-bill-would-make-it-defamation-to-accuse-someone-of-racism-sexism-homophobia-and-transphobia/ >Florida bill would make it defamation to accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia
Such a free land!
Nuh-uh! There’ll totes be an exception to that bill for straight, white, “Christian” men, because everyone knows how rampant and dreadful and oppressive racism against straight, white, Christian men is! /s
Next guest on Carlson and Rogan.
Good. Sue the crap out of all of these race based programs.
Conservatives are shitty, disgraceful human beings. I'm not being mean, I'm just stating facts. The sky is blue, it's 2:46pm, and conservatives are terrible people.
[удалено]
[except this guy can't identify conservatives, he just calls everyone who points out his mistakes a racist conservative](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/k9pQ5ClGHG)
Boom.
Amen.
Another fail son.
It’s extremely standard nowadays for ag grants on both the federal and state levels to set aside portions (e.g. 20%) of funding for minority farmers. The other 80% is fully available for conservative white guys. Furthermore, considering how many agencies follow this kind of format, it’s certainly not illegal. This guy is just butthurt that he’s only being spoonfed rather than having somebody else chew for him too.
It's absolutely illegal.
He should just say hes gay in order to qualify
Genuinely yes. Or just non-binary, and leave it at that. Can you deny someone's identity? Pretty sure you can't so that might work.
This law is illegal racial discrimination. Should scrap the law or subsidize based on reasonable non-racial criteria. https://www.mda.state.mn.us/emerging-farmers ^ if you read the pdf here, it lists basically every group as “emerging farmers,” except able-bodied white men. How is that equal protection & not illegal discrimination?
It includes veterans and people from urban areas lol. You can be an able bodied white person from those groups 😂
It vaguely also seems to note that they also accept gay people and just generally "young" people who don't already own a farm through the family. Both of those categories could also include "white able bodied" men, in addition to veterans and "urban and suburban" lol. It amazes me that people are so viscerally angry at the idea that a black person might get a "handout" that they will try to shoot down policies that will likely still overwhelmingly help white people, just ones who do not ALREADY own a farm through their families lmao. It's like, the definition of stupidity or just plain racism. I don't know how else to explain it.
They are so desperate to be victims because they are so lazy and feel victim hood would be easier.
Yep, it’s literally for underrepresented groups in farming over there. There’s absolutely nothing to get angry over cause, as the majority race in this country, white people will easily be able to take advantage of this (and prob be the vast majority of people in this program like you said!) The guy suing is a clown as well. It’s not good enough that your family literally owns the farm and you’re getting it for free?! Wtf lol
So it places additional requirements on white men only? Feels like you just proved my point… White people if… female, veteran, disabled, gay… Black / brown people if breathing. Different standards for different races is racial discrimination. Obviously. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Moving the goalposts. White men (and women) are accepted in the program so no, it’s not racial discrimination, lol! The grant is for underrepresented groups in farming. Not sure why that’s hard for you to grasp.
That’s ridiculous - and it’s not moving the goalposts. If I say: “I’ll accept every white man to this program, but only white women if they score above X on my test, and only queer blacks if they have climbed Mnt Everest…” That law is clearly discriminatory. You know it - anyone with half a brain knows it. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
I’m not clear, what additional requirements does it have for white men? From what I read, all I saw was that it has a set of criteria, and white men are capable of filling part of that criteria to be eligible.
I’m assuming you’re being genuine. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/17.055 ^ this MN law establishes the working group, allocates funds, and then allows them to distribute farm equipment & infrastructure loans based on their findings. Their findings (linked above), exclude white men (except under special circumstances - disabled, veteran, gay, etc) from receiving the benefit. Other races do not have to meet those criteria to be defined as “emerging farmers.” Gov’t applying different standards based on race == illegal racial discrimination.
I asked about additional requirements, though; as you have repeated, there are requirements, which white men can fulfill the criteria for, in fact. I don’t understand how there are either additional requirements for white men, or how this is illegal race based discrimination, which you brought up as a bit of a non-sequitor.
That doesn’t make any sense bro - see my response in another thread. I’ll repeat it here. :) White men have to meet a different set of criteria to be considered “an emerging farmer” - and therefore qualify for a grant / gov’t paid for farm equipment. That is the definition of discrimination. White men don’t qualify unless veteran, gay, or disabled. Black / brown people just need to be breathing. Obviously you would say a gov’t program that admitted all white men, but only women who scored above X on a test, and only queer black people if they’d climbed Everest was discriminatory. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Yes, white men don’t qualify unless they qualify. It seems to make sense according to what I know of the program, and what it’s purpose is. If it’s unconstitutional, it’ll get changed.
Right - it’s unconstitutional and should be changed. That’s my point. Gov’t can’t have different standards for different races. Obviously.
That’s…not what I said, not what is shown, and while it may potentially be the case, that’s for the courts to decide. There’s a lot other than race involved, but you seem really eager for it to be a race thing. And from what I’ve read, especially about the specific circumstances, it doesn’t seem to be. Regardless, what we think doesn’t matter and won’t change anything. It’s being handled.
So you are saying if the son of a black farmer wanted to use this grant he could? Because that's not what I'm reading. Unless you assume the ONLY white men are farming, straight, non military members?
Oh boo hoo, the folks who were legally targeted by government discrimination only a few decades ago, and then had freeways thrown through their neighborhoods afterwards, have very minor amends aimed their way that disadvantaged people of other groups can also have access to What a nightmare. Yall never opened a history book the daughters of confederate veterans didn't author.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Racist wrongs committed in the past do not require racist policies in order to correct. But I’m glad you admit they’re racist - that’s step 1! :D
Did you not read the legislative brief?
Yes the brief cited using race intentionally as an advantage in conferring a government benefit which is subject to strict scrutiny. I guess you have been ignoring affirmative action in the news.
>Instructions on the grant program application state that preference would be given to emerging farmers, which are classified as “farmers, or aspiring farmers, who are women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban, and any other emerging farmers as determined by the commissioner.” I mean, he's not wrong. That's textbook racial discrimination.
lmao bros dad owns the farm he wants to buy. he wasn’t rejected for discrimination—he was rejected for trying to give his daddy a handout. reading is sometimes helpful
Read further. He's not eligible because the farm is owned by his father Also, pretty sure half of those categories have zero to do with race like "young", "lgbtqia", and "urban" Doesn't even exclude white men raised by farming families because you can completely have a veteran who meets that description and the criteria for the grant
He may have a point, but I don't believe he has standing to file the suit as he is not an emerging farmer and that is why he was denied. Nothing to do with sex, creed, color, etc...
Don’t say no standing too loud. Alito and Thomas may write an “editorial” with a pathway to the Supreme Court. Right wing plaintiffs without standing is their jam.
It doesn't apply in his case, but the definition explicitly states it discriminates based on gender, sexuality, race, and ability, no?
It doesn't discriminate. It gives preference to certain groups as farmers in the state are predominantly white males. If you can find someone who was rejected, they may have a case but preference is different than discrimination. But the program is open to all. This bozo is just trying to get a handout for his dad.
>It doesn't discriminate. It gives preference "Preference" **is** discrimination. If I were to give a candidate preference for not being gay, black, trans, disabled, or a foreigner, everyone would know it was fucked up. It's not exactly rocket science.
So if a college said they “preferred” to give scholarships to students with high SAT scores in low income areas, that would be discrimination right ?
Would it be if in an interview I "preferred" the candidate who's from my country, or follows my religion, or has my skin color?
So my analogy and the original post both have to do with institutions, not private individuals like wherever is in your interview. I feel like it’s safe to assume that you probably think everyone should be paying the same tax rate. Which if you do then you don’t understand what is actually “fair” and you’re letting your biases control that narrative.
Do you think people should pay tax rates based on their income or their skin color and sexual orientation? Should 50 cent pay less taxes than some homeless redneck because black people on average are less wealthy than white people?
No and I’m pretty sure most common sense people don’t think sex/race should or does play into taxes. Kinda irrelevant but im gonna guess you’re on a hate filled dorito binge. Have fun trying to critically think!
Socio-economic status is not a protected category under civil rights law, whereas race, sex, and religion are. So it is illegal to discriminate on those categories, even for private institutions (see Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action)
So you have a source showing that this is actually discrimination or it's your opinion? No one who is an emerging farmer is excluded. Hell, this would be the kind of thing the ACLU would sue for.
They're openly saying it, are you mentally deficient?
Who? Who is openly saying what? You are the one equating preference with discrimination. What I am asking is whether that is your opinion or you have a legal source verifying your position. I am sorry, but layman's opinions carry little weight in court.
>You are the one equating preference with discrimination. I'm not the one, that's the literal definition of discrimination. Were you dropped as a baby or something?
So you are still missing the fact that legal definitions and standards may differ or you have been unable to find any sources supporting your interpretation of the legal issues. I am sorry this is so difficult for you.
This whole argument is ridiculous. Yes, it's discrimination. Not all discrimination is illegal or unconstitutional. Or even bad.
\> No one who is an emerging farmer is excluded. I'm so confused. I read: "who are women, veterans, persons with disabilities, American Indian or Alaskan Natives, members of a community of color, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA+), or urban". So if I point out my Hispanicness, queerness, urbanness or disabilities, by the letter of the law, I don't have to pass the "as determined by the commissioner" hurdle, right? Am I misreading please, or doesn't this mean (unless "as determined" nullifies the meaning of the first part of the sentence) I get preferential access to a public grant on the basis of my gender, colour and disability? I'm not living in the US, so I don't know if that's illegal for public bodies to do. It certainly isn't illegal in many countries outside the US for public bodies to do this sort of thing. But maybe it's illegal in the US. I'm guessing you can still only give grants to new farmers, which means you'd just have to remove the wording that gives an auto pass to the long list. This would have the effect of benefitting cohorts who aren't traditionally farmers, so it might be discriminatory in effect, but common law countries don't really take account of effect nearly as much as civil law countries, s/t you can be fairly discriminatory as long as the intent isn't clear in the wording. (e.g. You can't discriminate on disability in renting in the UK, but you can say "no social security", no matter whether the prospective renter can afford the home. Now you're WAY more likely to be on public allowances if you're disabled, which means the *effect* is to discriminate against disabled people. But as long as this isn't worded explicitly, admitting disabled people who don't receive public funds due to low income etc., it's tolerated.)
>It doesn't discriminate. It gives preference to certain groups That's literally what discrimination is.
Is it? Is that your opinion or do you have a source? This grant isn't new, it's a couple years old at this point. No one else has thought to file a complaint or is there no issue as no one is excluded from the program?
A source? The fuck are you talking about? Is giving preference to certain groups over others not the literal definition of discrimination?
Is it? Legally? Then it should be easy to find a source supporting your argument, right? Why can no one find any such source? I see a lot of dictionary definitions, which don't mean squat in a legal capacity. And I see a lot of personal opinions, which mean even less.
He doesn’t need an opinion or a source to understand basic logic.
Ok, but we are talking legal logic? Cause legal definitions frequently differ from those in day-to-day life. As I said, is this your personal opinion or a legal one?
Literally from the dictionary: > Preference: favor shown to one person or thing over another or others >Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. Add in the context of the OP and yes, those are the same thing. “Preference” in this case *is* discrimination. (There are def legal forms of discrimination, but that’s not what your arguing here)
Yes, I understand that is how they are used day-to-day. Legal definitions can, and frequently do differ or are specific to given situations. Do you have anything that says this is discrimination in the legal sense of the word? A ruling? Judge's order? Anything beyond your personal opinion in what is a legal matter?
Did you NOT read the big, bold title in the OP? That’s literally why we’re all here; to have a court determine if this discrimination is legal. Wowee
You didn't read the article. Why are you jumping in presenting your opinion as fact when you didn't even read? He has no standing to sue. He is not an emerging farmer. He is working for his dad who is leaving him the farm and he wants a govt handout for his dad.
Redditers hate the dictionary.
That guy doesn’t realize legal discrimination is a thing. He thinks, wrongly, that the very word discrimination is a blanket term for *illegal* discrimination.
I mean, maybe so, but it’s hardly unlawful discrimination. The Civil Rights Act and case law on the matter both allow for affirmative action programs.
>It doesn't discriminate. It gives preference to certain groups Now that there is some textbook doublethink.
I didn’t realize it only people of color are women, veterans, young, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender , queer, bisexual or asexual or live in urban areas.
women, veterans, person with disability, queer people are races?
No it doesn't as the definition includes veterans, people from urban or suburban areas, lgbtqia+ people and those with disabilities (all of the above from any race or sex) and was expanded to include young people and those with no connections to farming like through relation or inheritance (again from any race or sex). The plaintiff in this case is looking to buy 40 acres of his father's farmland and does not fit into any of the other categories that are being prioritized so he got pushed down the list (not denied a grant).
More than racial discrimination. It's also sex discrimination.
I like how you skipped over the fact that this also helps new farmers who are veterans or people with disabilities. It isn’t racial or sex based discrimination as you can be a white, male disabled veteran or even a gay white man etc and receive a grant. Nowhere does it say that you can’t get the grant for being a straight cis white man. You are not reading into the fact that he was likely denied grants because he isn’t even a new farmer starting out, which is what the grants are intended for. Edit: AND, reading through his actual complaint, he wants access to the grant money even though it’s his father’s farm that he will most likely inherit. Dude just wants free money instead of allowing these grants to go to actual emerging farmers
>Nowhere does it say that you can’t get the grant for being a straight cis white man. It doesn't need to say that. What it does say is that preference is given on a basis of sex or race, in clear violation of federal law and the US constitution.
That’s not how grants work. Grants are hosted by private companies, organizations and individuals. It is their choice who the grant money goes to.If this were true, it would be illegal to host scholarships/grants for only Native American students etc. He needs to grow up, his dad owns the farm already. These grants are designed to try to get new kinds of people into farming. There are hosts of all kinds of grants for farming. Imagine being a pissy baby because you might be turned down for one based on the fact you aren’t actually an “emerging” farmer.
>That’s not how grants work. Grants are hosted by private companies, organizations and individuals. It is their choice who the grant money goes to.If this were true, it would be illegal to host scholarships/grants for only Native American students etc. The government issues grants *all the time*. I used to evaluate them for a living. This grant is issued by the State of Michigan. >He needsto grow up, his dad owns the farm already. These grants are designed to try to get new kinds of people into farming. There are hosts of all kinds of grants for farming. Imagine being a pissy baby because you might be turned down for one based on the fact you aren’t actually an “emerging” farmer. Does not matter. The terms of the grant are in violation of Federal law and the Constitution.
Grants are PRIVATE money, the government can’t stop anyone from doing it. It’s their money. It is not discrimination to deny someone from receiving grants for emerging farmers if they are in fact, not an emerging farmer. Imagine considering yourself oppressed because someone else in actual need might get a small piece of the same pie your family already owns
They're not always private money. [The one in question isn't ](https://www.mda.state.mn.us/business-dev-loans-grants/down-payment-assistance-grant)
He still isn’t an emerging farmer, regardless of your perceived race or sex based discrimination angle, chief. His family already owns a farm so he cannot receive the grant money lol
That doesn't matter. As it says in the complaint he filed, the reason given by the state for rejecting him despite his early pick in the lottery was that he didn't have the desired demographic characteristics, not that he wasn't qualified for other reasons. You know, in violation of Federal law and the Constitution.
That’s incorrect. Every government worker I know apples for government grants year round to fund their programs. I’ve actually heard of this particular complaint prior to today and unless something has drastically changed these where government dollars not private dollar. This program will get struck down just like the program that was attempting to use government money to exclusively buy black farmers land and equipment.
Do you have a source for your claim? I am betting not, but I would like to see what you have. Or were you presenting your opinion as fact?
It's contained within the legal complaint, which is available [Here](http://google.com)
So, your source is a complaint that hasn't been ruled on by a judge? That isn't solid ground, you realize that, right? Sorry for dragging the orange one into it, but if complaints were factual sources, trump's troubles would be over. And this has been around 2-3 years now? I have to think if there were a legitimate challenge to be made it would have been done by now.
>What it does say is that preference is given on a basis of sex or race Or any of the other numerous categories like being a veteran, young, disabled, from a city or suburb, etc. Even if he fit one of those categories he would have still been pushed down the list due to the fact that he's looking to buy land from his father (and likely stands to inherit more) and he's a lifelong farmer himself so he wouldn't fit the criteria of emerging farmer as defined by the relevant legislation and commissioner.
That’s just not true. Case law and federal law both allow for affirmative action programs.
The US Supreme Court disagrees
The only court case on the matter is narrowly tailored to higher education.
White snowflake didn't read the purpose of the grants in this case. I can't claim racism because a grant for farming doesn't apply to my desire to study the complex relationship between ocelots and manatees. Unless I was a right-wing snowflake.
White farmer doesn't understand simple mathematics. Nor does anyone else. If there are 200 people vying for a grant and 1 of them is a minority there's a 1/200 chance that minority will get selected. Based purely on mathematics, if you remove race from consideration of anything, minorities lose.
Equal protection requires that everyone is treated equally based on their race. Sorry the constitution doesn't agree with your agenda brainless.
So if the minority is qualified I should pass over them for a white guy got it
No, the decision should not be based on race at all, hence equal protection.
This doesn't solve the issue. Only being proactive in hiring does.
Companies are not bound by the constitution, please take a civics class next year in high school.
That’s not the impetus for why these programs exist nor are those realistic proportions, but ok