Greer’s Ranch Cafe Et Al. v. The United States Small Business Administration: No Government Discrimination Based On Race Or Gender Means No Government Discrimination Based On Race Or Gender

OK to be white

When the government says that it isn’t OK to be white (or male), that’s not just unfair, it’s unconstitutional. Why is this so hard to grasp? Why is it controversial?

Texas federal district court Judge Reed O’Connor ruled last week that the Biden Administration was engaged in racial and gender discrimination in the administration of pandemic relief funds under the American Rescue Plan Act. NO! The BIDEN ADMINISTRATION handing out special benefits to women and blacks to the disadvantage of whites based on no other distinctions but race and gender? Impossible! Completely out of character!

Thanks, I had a huge sarcasm lump in my gorge that showed up on my last X-ray as a horseshoe crab. Whew! Finally got that thing out!

Judge O’Connor found that the Biden administration deliberately engaged in systemic gender and race discrimination in implementing Wuhan virus relief for American restaurants. Café owner Philip Greer sued the Small Business Administration arguing that he needs the same financial assistance as minority restauranteurs under the newly enacted American Rescue Plan Act, since his Greer’s Ranch Café lost over $100,000 during the pandemic. But Greer learned that he could not receive benefits from the Restaurant Restoration Fund approved by Congress because he is the “wrong” gender and the “wrong” color.

The White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress want women, minorities and “socially and economically disadvantaged” people” to be first in line. $2.7 billion already has been distributed through the fund and there are almost 150,000 pending applications from owners who will get preferential treatment over Greer. The SBA confirms it already has requests for $65 billion in payments under the fund. Greer worries that he might not get any assistance at all….because he is white. And—yecchh!—male.

Preferences based based on race, gender and other potential areas of “invidious discrimination” must satisfy the constitutional burden of “strict scrutiny.” Such classifications are unconstitutional unless they are “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling governmental interest.” The Justice Department’s “compelling governmental interest” in penalizing Greer and other solely on the basis of their hues or Y-chromosomes, relies on studies showing that women and minorities have often had less access to loans and credit. The judge disagreed, and ruled that historical disparities are not a just reason to install a system of race and gender preferences when all restaurants, regardless of the owner’s group, were harmed by the pandemic.

Correct. Personally, I do not necessarily believe that the historic problems faced by blacks and women are the sole or even the major reason this administration wants to jump them ahead in line. I think it may be nothing more noble than delivering spoils to a constituency.

In a 1989 case with similar issues, the Supreme Court struck down a minority set-aside program in Virginia as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, writing that using “identified discrimination” in the past to discriminate regarding current government benefits “would give … government license to create a patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical generalizations about any field of endeavor.” When trying to justify helping one race over another, “simply legislative assurances of good intention cannot suffice.”

Minority set-asides to remedy past inequities have been approved by the courts when they were created solely for that purpose and could be defended as a remedial benefit for a targeted group. This case, however, involved assistance for all restaurant owners, and race and gender were used to decide who received aid first, regardless of need. The Biden administration’s rationale could justify the use of racially discriminatory policies throughout the government, and potentially in perpetuity. Prof. Turley points out on his blog that “Under the American Rescue Plan, anyone can qualify for preferential treatment if they claim to be part of a group that has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society. It is the legislative version of the special graduation held at the University of Portland for “QTBIPOC (LGBTQIA and/or BIPOC).” Once the inclusions were defined, the only major exclusion was straight white males.”

The Biden Administration can appeal, but I bet they don’t. They will continue to slip as much racial and gender discrimination under the metaphorical radar with the assistance of courts more sympathetic to government favoritism toward the “right” groups, as in an Oregon pandemic relief program for black businesses, called the Oregon Cares Fund, that was challenged by a Mexican-American café owner. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s argument.

Chief Justice Roberts memorably said that the “way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” That is both an ethical and a logical conclusion.

Judge O’Connor’s ruling is here.

12 thoughts on “Greer’s Ranch Cafe Et Al. v. The United States Small Business Administration: No Government Discrimination Based On Race Or Gender Means No Government Discrimination Based On Race Or Gender

  1. I know enough about the ins and outs of small restaurants to say with confidence that many, MANY of these ‘women-owned” business are, in practice, “wife-owned businesses” in which the husbands do most of the actual work behind the scenes, while the couple reaps the many and varied benefits of having a woman or minority owner as the public face of their business.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s another example of how Democrats’ awful attempts at forced “equality” don’t really work. All Biden is doing here is indirectly rewarding certain white males; the ones who happen to start a business with female partners instead of male, and the ones who happen to be married to non-whites.

    It’s common for successful men to set up these new business for their wives or girlfriends, based on her favorite hobbies or talents. He helps her “live her dreams” and she gets the clout of being an “entrepreneur” with a minimum of sacrifice or hard work. Needless to say, these businesses often fail. You see them a lot on those “fix my struggling business” reality shows. Celebrity host asks in-over-her-head lady why she even started a restaurant, or salon, or whatever, when she clearly hasn’t got the head for it, and she cries, “it was always my dream.” Meanwhile, broke husband, who foolishly bankrolled all this, is hanging his head in the background. Even when things go perfectly, you often hear the horror stories of these women cashing out, divorcing him, and erasing him from the story of the business’ success.

    Biden pledged that his “priority will be Black, Latino, Asian and Native-American owned businesses” and “women-owned businesses.” But Asians already make more money than white people do. And so his motivation must be seen as intentionally divisive racial politics, rather than a reaction to any economic reality. He’s robbing Peter to pander to a coalition of Pauls, even though some of the Pauls need it less than Peter, and he’s hoping that the Peters on his side are sycophantic enough to go along with it.

    This kind of sleazy, race-baiting, divide-and-conquer policy is bad enough on its own, but its telling that the Democrats have been doing this all pandemic long. They don’t see this as a crisis which they must navigate, but as an opportunity to be milked for all it’s worth. Just like the corporations they partner with, the DNC will emerge from the COVID era stronger, richer, and more resistant to public criticism, as planned. And the fallout from the horrible, failed “rescue” policies will be someone else’s problem in a few years.

    • Wait, Chinese owners of restaurants are favored? That’s nuts. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Chinese restaurant fail. Because the Chinese families work their asses off in the business.

      • One of our closest friends owns a small Vietnamese/Chinese restaurant. Looks like your typical hole in the wall, but that man and his family worked so hard for years pleasing each and every customer, and serving huge portions of excellent food, that his loyal customer base got him through the pandemic.

        Sadly, many in our neighborhood (one of the lower income parts of San Diego) did not survive. Nearly all the strictly-buffet are permanently gone. Many restaurants spent tens of thousands of dollars on sidewalk patios/cafes when our horrible governor finally allowed only outdoor dining…and then, just weeks later, he re-banned that, too, making all of those expenditures a waste.

      • I have, but not often. If they do it’s usually because the area gets more restaurants/take-out places than the market will bear. The best one in my area, a place called the New China Inn, one of the few places in the area you could get Shanghai dishes (Hunan and Cantonese are most common) and the ONLY place I ever had a dish called Peking pastry beef, finally shut its doors about 5 years ago after a run of over 60 years, because the generation of the family in charge was retiring, and the next generation wanted to do other things than sling eggrolls and chow mein.

  2. “QTBIPOC (LGBTQIA and/or BIPOC).”

    Noooooooo. No no no no no, they finally got it right. QTBIPOC *isn’t* LGBTQIA and BIPOC, It’s just the Q and the T and BIPOC, and I would have it no other way. Ever since gay marriage went mainstream, progressives and gay people (particularly) gay men have found less and less common ground.

    Progressives seem to be seeing this as the gay people’s problem, a function of “you got your equality, now you’re taking your foot off the gas”, but in reality, if you’re a gay white men in a relationship with a man, progressivism spends 66% of it’s time demonizing you and the person you love. How excited are you going to be about a constant stream of abuse based on your group identity? Hell, the most virulent of anti-gay bigots only hated you because you were gay, they at least weren’t sexist and racist.

    Regardless, dropping the letters from the acronym isn’t a mistake. Progressives were more than willing to write out a 30 letter acronym out of an abundance of inclusivity. They’ve been doing it for years, and they’ll add more tags along the road… Just watch for the ones that fall off.

  3. “you got your equality, now you’re taking your foot off the gas”

    I wouldn’t fault some gay people for doing that. The left doesn’t own them. If some of them want to settle down and be married, raise kids, and generally be like everyone else, that is their right.

    • When the slaves were freed and black men got the right to vote, Susan B. Anthony decided that it was time for Frederick Douglass to start throwing his efforts into women’s suffrage. It caused a rift between them because she had supported emancipation and felt Douglass owed her. They patched things up when Anthony recognized that she was at fault and invited him to tea. There’s a statue in Rochester down the street from Anthony’s house to commemorate the event.

      I’m not sure why anyone thinks that gays or anyone else are required to put time and effort into other causes. You make a good point, Steve.

      • Or for that matter, why anyone thinks anyone should not fight their corner or stop fighting their corner. That’s the thing that bugs me as an Italian-American. We were once fighting against the racism of the late 19th and early 20th century. We ultimately did prevail, and now we’re being told you won, now step aside, you’re just a bunch of other white guys now. It doesn’t work like that.

      • P.S. one person’s difficulties do NOT create a lien or obligation on other folks. If you are white, you don’t owe the black population a thing except the same courtesy and good citizenship you would extend others. It’s not your duty to advocate for them, speak for them, fight for them, or do their dirty work for them. It’s not your duty to “use your privilege” to reshape the world as they would like it to be. Your first duty is to your country, your community, and your family, not to some vague notion of social justice. Don’t accept being told that you have some duty to be “anti-racist” as defined by someone else. You just refrain from deliberately insulting or offending others for any reason, and the rest will take care of itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.