Then they won't do business with those professions. And that would probably be a terrible business decision. But they should have the right to make a terrible business decision.

I just think that it is stupid for we, as a society, to think that every has a right to a savings account. Emergency care is a very, very specific thing we think everyone has a right to. I'm not about to put banking in there.

Yes, exactly. There are specifically outlined things that cannot be discriminated against. Profession is not one of them.

No, not at all. Because all of those things are protected characteristics. Not profession.

OH BROTHER.

But that's not because they're discriminating against someone because they're a sex worker, but because they are refusing service. Unlike an emergency room, you can't tell a bank that they have to accept every single person as a customer. You can't even tell a doctor to accept every customer. Emergency rooms are a…

It's not a false analogy. Just because there are bigger consequences to you making a business decision than booting someone off a subreddit, doesn't necessarily mean that you no longer have the right to make that business decision. That's not how the law works.

I honestly didn't think there was this big Redeemer/Christian narrative that you were talking about here. I still don't. I don't really think that Chase is in the business of reforming, they just don't want (what they consider to be) a black mark on their books. I think it's as simple as that, which is why I didn't…

Yes, you could. That's not illegal.

Private as in "non-governmental," honey. Not privately held/publicly traded. Even the federal government is allowed to discriminate based on profession, so even if I were to admit that it's a "semi-public" or governmental institution (which I don't), profession STILL isn't a protected characteristic.

I'm sorry I didn't assume your mother was schizophrenic before I wrote my comment. Whether access to banking should be a legally protected right is an interesting one, I'll give you that. But, still, even then, even if it were a legally protected right, you're still allowed to discriminate against people for…

That's a fair point, and not one remotely addressed by this article, but worth a discussion.

What? No. That's not what I said, at all. Let me spell it out for you, more clearly. The only way you're going to allow the government to step in and prevent a private company from discriminating against a particular group is if you make that characteristic a protected characteristic. Like sex/race/etc. You make…

Read the sentence "Banks shouldn't have the right..." Not that the bank shouldn't have the policy, but that the bank shouldn't have the right to make the policy. Big difference.

Yeah, that's right. They think all that. And they're allowed to. And they won't be making a profit off of those customers who they don't deem appropriate. And they won't be making a profit off of those customers that don't think that Chase should have come to that conclusion. But it's okay for them to make that…

I totally agree that banks have a bad history, here. When they discriminated against people on the basis of race or gender, etc. But not letting them make choices based on an arbitrary moral high ground? That's tricky. Because, here, it's a moral high ground you disagree with, but what if another bank didn't want…

They're aren't taking away anyone's money. Just saying "We don't want you as a customer." There's no indication that this has anything to do with religion, at all, (and even if it did, it still would be entirely legal, even IF the supreme court shuts down the concept of religious beliefs of corporations). Because…

Oh, you're so clever!

Yeah, I don't get it. And I don't think it's a GOOD business decision necessarily. But I think they have every right to make that choice.

Because you're not taking that to it's logical conclusion. In order for it "not to be allowed" that means that you would have to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of a person's job description. That means it would be illegal for a company to see what job you currently have when they are considering hiring…