Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman
Um, no. Read the link you yourself provided:
As already quoted by Hopey:
So again, to be clear, based on information you provided to the forum, the Federal Reserve officials never thought this was a separation of church and state issue. It was strictly an issue of the fair lending act.
It's b.s.
Nobody could ever have an ethnic or religious identity if fair lending the way the Federal Reserve interpreted it was to apply.
Now who is going to give up his identity to ensure equal credit opportunity?
Are you going to give up your identity? Can you even give up your identity if you want to?
It was pure b.s. based on an individual's misinterpretation or over extension of other minority groups' freedom at the expense of the larger group. The Fed over stepped its authority. If no act of discrimination occurred then there was no abuse to regulate.
Some issues have to be handled after an abuse occurs. You can't just go around and deny people the expression of their identity. That's potentially a bigger civil rights abuse than the one or two people who could feel intimidated. But its a storm in a teacup because there
was no allegation by any individual of feeling discriminated or intimidated. Why should they allege discrimination or intimidation when no one asks you for your religion in your credit application? They should only feel it if they are paranoid or hoping to start a conflict from their own personal motives or prejudices.
Last edited by Splendour; 01-03-2011 at 12:20 PM.
Reason: changed the word government to Fed.