Um, John? Please point to a single case in the history of the United States that confers or denies a company corporate rights (with respect to being able to deny customers/access/discriminate/etc.). I will take ANYTHING you can point to, because I guarantee you are 100%, laughably, wrong.

Utilities are different because it's not like you could go to a rival water company or electricity company. There's an established monopoly that, precisely because there is no market alternatives, you have to serve everyone. That's not the case with banking.

That's not true - even the federal government can discriminate based on profession.

I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't be allowed to make a big fuss over this. I just think it is stupid to do so.

No.

No, I'm not assuming that. I don't have to assume.

Absolutely. Totally improbable, but still legal.

It doesn't, though - even if it was the federal government, they could still discriminate based on profession.

No they didn't. Even if it was the federal government itself, it's not illegal to discriminate in this manner.

I guess they'll have to use cash. It's about as likely to happen (and just as legal) as all banks deciding to close accounts of all ugly people, or divorced people, or fat people. Legal, but not going to happen.

No, that's not what discrimination means. It's absolutely discrimination. Every decision you make can be considered discrimination under your rubric - not hiring an ugly actor, not hiring a fat fitness instructor. But it doesn't make it illegal discrimination. Even with all your discussion about federal bailouts,…

No, that's not what the supreme court has said. They have said that if you choose to enter the market place you cannot discriminate against a particular group, if that particular group is part of a protected class. Gender, race, etc. What you raise, about companies not wanting to provide services at gay weddings,…

They can't do that because race and gender are protected classes. So that's already illegal. I'm just saying we shouldn't add profession to the protected class.

I don't think that strippers getting fired is anywhere close to a "real" problem. I cannot be compelled to put that on my Top 100 List of Important Things to Work To Eradicate. You're never going to pass a law that forces employers to ignore their morality in hiring. If I own a business, I want to be able to not…

You are 100% making an assumption. You're either an idiot or a obtuse if you can't see that. I am not talking about free speech here, that's not why Chase can discriminate. They can discriminate because profession is not a protected class. Just like directors can discriminate against ugly people and colleges can…

I don't know. I'm not going to make an ASSUMPTION, like you are.

Please explain about "adult-oriented material" and a "reputation risk" has anything to do with religion.

That may be true. But it still doesn't make someone's profession a protected class. Every bank in the world could discriminate against the CEO of BP, if they wanted to, and that CEO (and all the executives at all the oil companies) might not have access to any banking services at all. And there would be nothing…

Absolutely. But it's not unrealistic, and they do survive. And you're not talking about cutting them off from all banking, just one very specific bank.

Yes, they can discriminate against customers who eat pork, get divorced or drink alcohol. All of that is legal. You have yet again NOT proven that they are discriminating for fear of their reputation among those that who are a religion that is against sex work. You are making an assumption. An assumption that is…