I'm sorry, you're just wrong. It's not about 'necessities." There's no point in discussing further with you because you aren't operating with a true set of facts. And you have absolutely no proof that Chase's decision has anything to do with religion, or that there is anything consistent about sex worker's…

Wow. No. Absolutely not. You have no clue how religious discrimination works, does it? First of all, you have absolutely no evidence that the reason why Chase is choosing not to offer its business services to sex workers has anything to do with religion. So you're grasping at straws before you've even started. …

You are factually incorrect. Anti discrimination laws are centered on a protected class. What you're talking about isn't about necessity, but the legal key word you're grasping at is "public accommodation." Which almost any business except private clubs and religious groups qualify as. Discrimination about…

Unrealistic? How privileged of you. A lot more people than you think have no access to bank accounts. It's absolutely a real thing for a lot of Americans.

Use cash.

No, it's literally not how the law works.

Yes they do. Even if they were the federal government, they could discriminate based on profession.

Oh, please tell me how the government should get involved in all of our decisions!!

I know. I've been saying that all along (in other comments, I did not address it in my first comment, I fully admit). But this isn't a "remains to be seen situation." There are very specific protected classes. Race is one of them. Profession is not. What Chase is doing is 100% legal.

Thanks :) you're sweet (I was especially annoyed by the "crazy" comment because I, too, have a lot of crazy in my family!)

No, it's not a new frontier. Banks cannot discriminate based on race, either. It's not the nature of the service in your analogy that is the difference, but the nature of the discrimination. Race is not okay. Profession is okay. Period. The law is not what you think it is.

No. It's not. Because RACE is a protected class. Profession is not. The reason why hotels are not allowed to turn you away for your race isn't because "shelter" is necessary, but because race is a protected class. Period. The law is not what you think it is.

Because religion is a protected class, not because it's a moral objection. HUGE difference.

Fair enough. If we change legal policy, we can prohibit this type of discrimination. I don't disagree, and I apologize if that's how what I said came across.

Then talk about it in a more intellectual way, about changing policy, and all the logical conclusions about changing those policies, not about vague "Wah! They shouldn't be able to do this! Stomp stomp stomp!"

Then another bank would realize that there's a huge amount of money to be made with all these morally offensive customers who don't have anywhere to put their money.

I'm not saying they do. But they have the right to pretend.

If you were a landlord, should you be forced to rent to the KKK? If you owned a hotel, should you be forced to let them hold their meetings in your conference rooms? If you owned a restaurant, should you be forced to let them hold their awards ceremony in your dining room? There's nothing illegal about being a…

That's not true, at all. If you are a landlord, should you be forced to rent an apartment to the KKK? Should you be forced to let them hold a conference in your hotel? Come on.

Yes, we could amend the constitution to force banks to open up savings accounts for porn actors.