The fact that the organization is Jewish is stated prominently in the article, but I’m not entirely sure why that’s relevant. Many charities in the US have religious affiliations.

The adult matchmaking etc, that deviates substantially from their advertising.

▲

MichaelDickens an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's relevant because the fact that it's religious organization was an important fact in the judge's ruling. From the article:

> If Kars4Kids resumes advertising, [Judge Apkarian] wrote, its ads must contain “an express, audible disclosure of its religious affiliation and the geographic location of its primary beneficiaries and the age of the beneficiaries, specifying whether they aim for children or families, or both.”

▲

aranchelk an hour ago | parent [-]

Having to audibly name the religion/ethnicity of beneficiaries of charities is a pretty wild requirement for a US charity.

That may have been the judge’s framing, but it seems off from what I typically expect from mainstream US news.

	▲	futter9 33 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's not at all wild if the charity presents itself as non-discriminatory (ostensibly to deceive "outsiders" into misguided donations) while specifically benefiting the ethno-religious group of its administration. It's clearly deceptive and exploitative.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

fn-mote an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To clarify the last sentence: the article says:

> Kars4Kids primarily funds a New Jersey-based Jewish organization, Oorah, which provides programs, including an adult matchmaking service, trips to Israel for teens and summer camps in New York, the judge wrote. The only program in California that Kars4Kids sponsored was a promotional giveaway of Kars4Kids-branded backpacks, she found.

▲

MBCook an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s still not relevant.

The charity is giving almost no money to kids. Thats the relevant part.

Doesn’t matter if it Catholic, Jewish, Scientologist, or Zoroastrian.

The law wasn’t faith based. The decision wasn’t faith based.

So why does the faith matter?

	▲	Ukv an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Both "giving almost no money to kids" and that the recipients (mostly adults) it did benefit were "based on religious affiliation" seem fairly surprising to me. If I donated a car, I would feel mislead by both.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

moate 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's assume the charity was Catholic and didn't inform people: do you think that wouldn't be mentioned? What about Muslim, Hindu, Satanic?

People have very strong feelings about their money going to religious organizations, especially if the organization doesn't state that they're religious in nature.

Let's do this: What are you implying? Because it seems that you're implying special treatment because this organization is Jewish, and that's not likely the case here in most people's eyes, but explain why you might think that is if that's what you believe.

▲

ande-mnoc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I'm not entirely sure why that's relevant

Because they are funding young people to visit Israel and this gives it context.

	▲	MBCook an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Why does Israel matter? All that matters is very little money is going to the stated goal of helping poor kids. Religious angles of what they’re doing instead doesn’t seem to have mattered in the ruling.

▲

booleandilemma 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it's not obvious at all from their commercials, and that's how most people come to know about this shady org.

In CharityWatch’s view, the Kars4Kids ads deceive potential donors by failing to inform them that donated cars will benefit a Jewish organization and kids of Jewish faith. Furthermore, the youth programs Kars4Kids supports promote an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle, which CharityWatch believes compounds the deception perpetrated by the Kars4Kids ads

https://blog.charitywatch.org/costly-and-continuous-kars4kid...