Banks refusing to do business with gun businesses

L

LogicMan

New member
So I am curious, but could an argument be made that Bank of America and Citigroup's refusing to do business now with gun businesses is discriminatory and thus illegal? For example, if a bakery refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, the law has said that this is illegal discrimination and that they have to anyway. The argument that, "There are other bakeries to go to..." doesn't hold.

So could the same be said about a bank refusing to do business with a gun manufacturer or dealer? That it is discrimination and thus illegal? Or are there differences that I am not thinking of?
 
Gun dealers aren't a protected class so the answer is no.

The power to force banks to do business with gun dealers can probably be found where all nebulous powers are found, in that Swiss Army Knife of constitutional phrases: the commerce clause. But I'm not sure that's a good idea. I'm pretty sure it's not.
 
The power to force banks to do business with gun dealers can probably be found where all nebulous powers are found, in that Swiss Army Knife of constitutional phrases: the commerce clause. But I'm not sure that's a good idea. I'm pretty sure it's not.
Click to expand...

This. And I agree, the commerce clause has been bastardized enough already. Even though it would be for my team, I don't want it bastardized any more.
 
People often fail to understand that discrimination is not necessarily illegal. EVERY business is involved in various forms of discrimination. Capitalism is a discriminatory system. However, as noted, you can't discriminate against protected classes.
 
And now Bank of America is contributing 43.2 million to a fund of seven banks to keep Remington in business after it leaves bankruptcy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1I70AE
Click to expand...
That link & that story should really be spread all over the place so the "duck hunters" & the people that say the 2nd is based on a "need" (no one "needs" this or that) - - sit up and take notice...

It's perfectly clear what the intention is here and what's at the heart of the subject.
The article says:

"Remington makes the Bushmaster assault-style rifle,"

Yet pictured is - a Remington 870 pump action shotgun.

A picture says a thousand words...

We can dismiss these incidents as ignorance of the media for only so long.
There has to come a point though that we recognize these subtle messages as the propaganda that they are.

'course,,,,people on our side will poo poo this idea right up to the point that all guns are made illegal....
 
Logicman said:
So could the same be said about a bank refusing to do business with a gun manufacturer or dealer? That it is discrimination and thus illegal? Or are there differences that I am not thinking of?
Click to expand...

As others have noted, it's discriminatory but not illegally so.

The issue I see in this and other routine discrimination cases - whether you want to do business with a bank that doesn't want your business. I've negotiated some small deals with banks who do want my client's business, and the banks can be unreasonable and unaccommodating even when they say they want the business.
 
Last edited:
Given how greedy bankers actually are, borrowers will have no trouble finding some who wants their business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top