Don’t you think that would happen if Chase was in the wrong here? Maybe NCRF should take them to court instead of Twitter. But- they’re really are just after the poutrage.
What was the last conservative boycott that rose above the level of dramatic theatrics
In an “equal treatment under the law” world sure, but we don’t live in that type of fantasy world.
2 Likes
There Will Be Blood is the story of how the capitalist confidence man absolutely wrecks the religious confidence man over influence in America. It seemed appropriate to me.
Chase isn’t woke. Woke doesn’t mean anything anymore anyway.
Or something. As I noted earlier, there’s a spate of stories in October, then…nothing until the post in the OP.
Whatever happened, the story is incomplete.
Nope it cannot be this because essentially that would mean 501c4 organizations, or campaign organizations, etc would be shut out of the banking system.
I don’t believe Chase could claim that if they allowed an organization that supports specific candidates to bank with them, that implies Chase’s support of said candidates.
I, too, think there’s more to the story, but…Chase has so far not commented.
And even the October stories are all from righty publications- nothing from, say, the WSJ.
I was going with what the OP wanted me to believe, that it was a religious non profit charity and not a PAC.
OK. I’ve since read further.
Shouldn’t organizations be free to decide their own associations?
That’s the fantasy world I know a lot of conservatives want to live in.
If a baker should be free to do what they want…shouldn’t a banker?
Have you thought through the path you are currently strolling down?
3 Likes
The path is already well trodden by the right-yet they stray from it when convenient.
So the proper question is why aren’t you being consistent?
I didn’t realize that I was advocating for private businesses to have the right to demand customers provide them with the names, address of their associates, customers, or supporters in order to do business. That is what is going on here. And it doesn’t involve the bank’s funds, we are talking about the funds of the customer here.
4 Likes
The extraneous details are irrelevant. Either businesses should have the right to chose associations or they shouldn’t.
Of course this philosophy hails from the equal treatment fantasy world you referenced earlier.
Actually they are very relevant. The Bank was already doing business with the PAC. The PAC isn’t a new customer seeking new business with the bank. And the PACs donor list is clearly a partisan politial matter, not a matter of religion or conscience. The bank is free to notify the PAC that they no longer wish to have their business and provide the PAC immediately with a cashier’s check for the balance of their deposits.
3 Likes
Okay. So this:
Was a heat of the moment jerk of the knee?
And this is just pablum?
Regarding the donor list: on it’s face, I can agree it is inappropriate to request the list. It sure would be nice to have the bank’s explanation.
Not at all, they are attempting to extort the donor list from the PAC. That isn’t a refusal of business. As such they should be sanctioned by losing their FDIC membership and loss of access to the Fed Funds system.
3 Likes
My guess is that it has something to do with this:
It may have to do with their claim to be non partisan.
I started doing that years ago. It first began with Walmart and China. Then it went to Amazon and them putting out local businesses. Then…companies decided to become political and now…the list is long; tops…is Starbucks. I won’t bore you with the list but pay attention and vote with your dollars.
4 Likes
