https://winteryknight.com/2025/03/13/jp-morgan-chase-changes-policy-for-de-banking-christians-and-conservatives/
I don't know, but it seems like this is wrong on some level.
Either business have the ability to serve whoever they want based on their own criteria, or they must serve anyone regardless. It doesn't seem like there's a middle ground on this.
Although in the US religion IS a protected class, which seems to indicate that there was a violation of the law here.
10 comments:
I agree that businesses should not be prohibited from doing business with whomever they choose and denying those they dislike. I've been baking with these guys for decades and I was aware they were doing this. But they're most everywhere (not as ubiquitous here in SC as they are in IL). But enough public pressure makes their discrimination more widely known and that has to be hurting them. That's the very kind of pressure of which I approve: whatever the market will bear. I hope it continues.
In general I agree, although in the US it is literally illegal to discriminate against anyone in a legally defined protected class. I guess I'd think that for Christians to voluntarily do business with a business that is actively discriminating against Christians seems a strange choice. Especially given the number of alternatives.
If the alternatives were equal, that certainly would make it easier to disrupt my finances, which have been in place for probably 40 years or more. In the private sector, it shouldn't be illegal to discriminate against anyone for any reason short of preserving a person's life. It such if the bigot is the only game in town, but it's his business. Let him sink or swim on his own choices.
Again, in general I agree. Where you lose me is suggesting that explicitly and intentionally violating US law (whether you agree with it or not) is appropriate.
Since we're well beyond the days of local, physical, banks being the only game in town, I can't imagine continuing to do business with someone who's discriminating (or planning to) against me.
Wow! Lots of typos in comments. I've been lax in my proof reading!
I never said violating the law was appropriate. I said the law is inappropriate if I said anything at all in that regard. Indeed, the law oversteps its constitutional authority to dictate to the private sector in most every regard. The government on every level is where applying laws equally is important, rather than applying laws which force people to forsake their liberty and God-given rights. You put no one's life in jeopardy by telling that mixed-raced transsexual lesbian to get her beef jerky somewhere else. For whatever reason you choose to refuse any association with a such a person is a liberty which cannot legitimately be denied you, even in business. If the market disapproves, that's a different and totally legitimate infringement on your rights.
I didn't suggest that you had, I am emphasizing the fact that violating federal law is beyond simply choosing who one wants to do business with. Regardless of your opinion of this law and its constitutionality, it IS the law and violating it carries penalties. In my business, we get constantly reminded of the penalties for violating anti discrimination laws, so it's something I've got to be aware of. The bigger question is, since discriminating against a significant portion of the potential client pool of any business (especially a publicly held company), both the risk of penalties and lost business would seem to cut into profits. One wonders why a large company would be stupid enough,or so poorly managed, as to expose themselves in this way.
Again, I get it, it's more convenient for you to do business with a company that seems to be prepared to discriminate against you, that's obviously your choice.
You did seem to be suggesting I was advocating for breaking established laws. It's ironic that these established laws are breaking Constitutional principles as regards liberty.
The larger the company, the more able they are to get away with doing something so disgusting and getting away with it.
And yes, in this case, by my patronage, they're serving someone with whom THEY don't want to do business. That's rather gratifying.
If it seemed that way it was unintentional. Although your opinions on those laws don't mean that those of us affected by those laws are free to disregard them. Certainly not to make it public.
That's an interesting perspective. Given that they give you nothing that you can't get from any number of financial institutions, I personally fail to see how contributing to their success and profitability is some subversive gesture. If you used your patronage as a way to attempt to change their policies "from the inside", I could see that. But that doesn't seem to be the situation.
I guess it'll be interesting to see how you react if they "debank" you for your beliefs.
But they do give me something I can't get from other institutions. Their ubiquity, which is very convenient for our purposes. I don't necessarily know that other large banks are much different, and I would wager they're all much the same. Thus, the smaller banks would not be as easily accessible everywhere.
I have cut off my patronage of several companies because I could just as easily take my business elsewhere, even where the prices are higher. But it's just not possible to cut one's self off from the world given how much of this kind of nonsense permeates the business world. There seems to be a growing tendency, with at least those companies who advertise during conservative broadcasts, to highlight not only being made in America, but with companies promoting American and/or Christian ideals. I gravitate toward such companies should I have need of or a desire for what they're selling.
If the only banking services you ever avail yourself of are only available in the lobby of a brick and mortar building, I guess having a vast number of brick and mortar locations might be a big factor for those few who highly value the brick and mortar experience.
Personally, I rarely go inside of my personal bank unless I'm counting change or visiting my safe deposit box. I do the vast majority of my business with them via the app or the ATM.
I'd do the same with my credit union if I'd get motivated enough to download and set up the app. Once I download the app, there is almost zero reason why I would ever set foot in a physical location again. Fortunately, that's a choice I can make, while you can choose another.
Again, it's your choice. If you value convenience and ubiquity over supporting a business that's hostile to your beliefs then that's a decision that is completely within your purview.
Personally, I gravitate towards local business as much as I can. Paradoxically, I still consider some businesses in KC as local for my purposes because of a long history of purchasing their products. I might gravitate towards Christian business a little, but it's not a big factor for me.
Post a Comment