T Nation

Why Are Banks Allowed to Prohibit Activists from Receiving Money?

I’ve read that certain political activists are no longer allowed to recieve money through their bank accounts because of certain things they said (things that are not illegal just not politically correct or seen as unpopular opinions). How is that even legally possible? It’s not like jobs nowadays have an option to opt out of not using a bank account so how can they do this? How can these entities get away with this legally?!!

Source?

I am not sure if this is their reasoning, but many banks will close down accounts of members associated with terrorist organizations. Canada has listed the proud boys as a domestic terrorist organization.

Additionally, that is one hell of a source. I read a few paragraphs and boy is it something. You might want to reconsider your sources of news if you are interested in digesting material somewhat likely to be true vs propaganda.

2 Likes

How does this prohibit him from receiving money? Not saying it’s a good move or anything but banks aren’t keeping people from receiving money. You typically have to give them money to start an account and I would guess most can sever that relationship if they want though I must admit I’m not an expert on banks.

What do you suggest then? CNN? The New York Times? Becuase I’d trust a junkie over those media news outlets.

Well, forums like this aren’t bad IMO. You get both sides.

Same reason you, as an interior designer, could refuse to decorate the interior of the house of the guy who banged then married your wife, I imagine.

The interfering with the flow of information from government representatives to their citizens by monopoly technology companies richer than nearly all other companies combined is of far greater concern, in terms of service delivery.

That’s why sensible countries threaten to jail those who engage in such shenanigans for their egregious display of the white-man’s burden.

You’re putting an interior designer on the same level as the banks… just lol

So you dislike people with different opinions? And I’d much rather spend a year in prison and be able to get a job and continue with my life as if nothing ever happened afterwards rather than struggle for the rest of my life financially.

I have never understood if people who do this don’t understand how analogies work or they are being purposefully difficult.

No cockspank, I am not saying an interior designer is at the same level at a bank but I am saying business can choose their customers when they are not monopolies (depending on regulations and whether we’re dealing with a protected class). Just like when your 3rd grade teacher said eating food and sleeping for you is like watering a plant and giving it sun. Your teacher was not saying you’re a fucking plant lol

So you dislike people with different opinions? And I’d much rather spend a year in prison and be able to get a job and continue with my life as if nothing ever happened afterwards rather than struggle for the rest of my life financially.

Literally the opposite of what I said :roll_eyes:

3 Likes

Wonder why bakers get sued for choosing not to bake cakes for customers then.

1 Like

Did they win or lose?

Not sure if rhetorical but the bakery’s right to religious freedom and the state’s obligation to remain neutral on religious matters won (?) over the civil rights of the gay couple.

Probably worth noting that the bakery did not deny them service to pre-baked goods.

Also worth noting that political orientation is not a protected class/group (and sexual orientation is)

Rhetorical, I knew they won, but I’m saying even though I’m left of center, I don’t think we should force stuff like this. The baker can refuse whom they serve as a private business, and YouTube can choose who they serve as a private business.

1 Like

Are you sure this isn’t a parody news site… like The Onion?

I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Chase ended their relationship with the guy because of his “political activism”. Banks terminate accounts for lots of reasons. I know a guy who’s Bank of America account was closed because he made too many large cash deposits. I guess that kind of behavior was indicative of illicit activities, and the bank didn’t want the liability.

In the off chance you’re asking in good faith, you could start with this.

The wire services are also good bets if you want straight news with limited opinion/bias.

1 Like

This is actually quite common, it happens in Australia, Britain, USA, that I am aware of. Its not just banks, its also credit card companies, and Paypal, Patreon, Western Union, basically any form of person to person payment, as well as a personal bank account.

From the many instances I’m aware of It usually happens without warning, you are unable to pay bills or withdraw money. Eventually they release your money(via cheque I assume). I have heard of Patreon, keeping the cancelled person’s money.

I have no idea what happens if you have a mortage or other large loan? I can’t imagine they could summarily cancel such a contract.

I am aware that banks have cancelled bank accounts if you were involved in financial fraud, money laundering, or funding terrorism. In these areas you probably need to be found guilty in court, or at least under serious police investigation. The reason for the bank doing this, is not altruistic, its to protect themselves from liability from enabling criminal activity. Banks will happily support murderers, rapists and pedophiles though.

Its probably in the small print when you sign up to a new bank account, that they can cancel your account for any reason. In recent debates on this site many people justified an employers right to do the same thing to employees who even out of work hours expressed certain politically correct ideas.

I don’t think anyone could have imagined that banks which usually don’t care where the money comes from, would cancel a bank account, when they weren’t legally required to. It just didn’t happen in the past. Even communists never suffered this kind of arbitrary discrimination. Its exclusively used against right wing proponents.

Laws have not caught up to today’s reliance to digital currency. Cash is becoming a thing of the past, so using it as a viable alternative may not last much longer. Both banks and governments prefer digital currency, because your assets can be charged, taxed, fined or seized and there isn’t anything you can do about it. They have all the power. It leads to a society like communist China.

In a democracy you shouldn’t be able to get penalised this way for expressing a politcal opinion.

I didn’t follow it enough to actually know who won.

Even black people?

The problem is that private doesn’t mean private but privately owned. The business takes advantage of public streets and, if necessary, the fire department, for example. These are things that everyone contributes to and allow that business to exist. Soldiers, of all races, religions, sexual orientations, have died so that business can exist.

If that baker goes to the ER, he could need the life saving services of a gay doctor who he would refuse to serve in his bakery. Does that doctor have a choice when it comes to saving the baker?

Thanks to the hit job performed on Tarrio, he’s not even sure how he’ll feed his family anymore.

“How am I supposed to get food to feed my family? Are [they] taking the directions of the Governor of Virginia and [trying to abort me] 34 years after birth. They are essentially denying my existence, and trying to force me into homelessness, and ultimately death,” he said.

How about you get a job you lazy dirtbag? What a whiny little baby.

You make good points. I think legally a business can’t refuse service for any reason (I think it has to be a consistent rule that is enforced), but I am not sure I agree with that. I think one would be silly to refuse paying customers, but I am not sure I think the baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, a white couple, a black couple, etc… I will say that if you take that stance, you should be consistent, and not demand Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc. allow everybody use their services. I’ve seen a lot of inconsistency around this topic with many conservatives.

The same could be said for residential housing. I don’t think others have a right to say use the house just because many people’s contributions make it possible.

He would have to break his oath to do so.

1 Like