Charity Money Rejected Due to Ties with D&D

[FM]

Just read this on Rich Burlew's site, and thought I might share with you guys. Thoughts?

[Ulmo]

Well, it is the charity's right to reject the money, however foolish this may be.  Unfortunately it is the children they are trying to help that will not benefit from the D&D players generous contributions.

[FM]

Yeah, but, don't you think it's too much prejudice? I mean, it's not like D&D or WotC is run by Drug Lords or anything...

[sickofpalantirs]

linky?

[FM]

Click "this" on my first post. It'll go a long way.

[Ulmo]

Yes, I think that it's is too much prejudice, but they are standing by their principles to not accept money from sources that do not adhere to their core beliefs.
I think they're crazy for rejecting money from any source because they're trying to help children, but it's their organisation and their choice.

[Elf_Lvr]

I don't care if they're devil worshipers (which they're not, anyway). The money would save lives. It's a CHARITY. Isn't that about swallowing your pride and doing what's right, regardless of cost?

[FM]

And as Rich pointed out in his site, I'm pretty sure the starving children wouldn't exactly care where the money was from, it could ACTUALLY BE from Drug Lords, for all they care, at least as far as I'm concerned. If I was the Fundraiser Organizer, I'd most definitely sue the Organization based on prejudice. I wouldn't ask for money, of course (after all, it's a CHARITY organization, I still have SOME principles, even having gone through Law School... ), but rather a public apology of sorts.

[Gate Troll]

Yeah, as one roman emperor said after his son questioned the money he had received from taxing excrement,
"money doesn't smell." I think the only thing stopping the charity from accepting the money is their pride.

[Ulmo]

So you'd sue them because they don't take the money?
They don't have to take the money. 
There is nothing that obliges them to take the money.

[SomeRandomDude]

But F_M is a sue-happy guy, so we let him sue.

[sickofpalantirs]

I wouldn't ask for money, of course (after all, it's a CHARITY organization, I still have SOME principles, even having gone through Law School... ), but rather a public apology of sorts.

sigged

[FM]

So you'd sue them because they don't take the money?
They don't have to take the money. 
There is nothing that obliges them to take the money.

I'd sue them because that's prejudicial and creates a bad image from the group of people who just donated to a cause I was representing (if I were the organizer). But hey, I AM a sue-happy guy, after all...

[Ulmo]

FSHM: Who says the charity can't be prejudiced?  They can be if they want to be, and it's a private organization.  If it's public, then it's a different kettle of fish.

Just curious - why sue?  Why not just take the money to another/similar charity and go to the newspapers/internet and explain to all why you're giving to the new charity and how ridiculous the first charity is?  Why bring the courts into it?

[FM]

Mainly, because if you do that, if you go on the internet and say they're a bunch of idiots, and all, you're no better than they were. Also, we have here what are called "crimes against honor" and both actions would qualify, so I'd much rather have them be MADE to apologize for, well, being idiots (not to mention the shame of having to do so in public, it's well worth it in these cases), and preserving the image of the people they offended, than lowering to be like them and simply "offend them back".