@logicisforsquares said:

Disagreeing with someone or a govt agency and choosing to withhold your business should be the right of every citizen/business. Whether that be having to bake a cake or offer banking services.

Disagreeing based on what reasons tho?  Behind every disagreement there are reasons. If there was compelling rationale behind the banks refusal to withhold business, then I would listen. But there aren't any.

Feelings, compassion, emotions toward those (as Nany Pelosi put it) "little bundles of love" aren't sufficient enough reasons.

But I know what you're going to say...that there doesn't have to be a reason.

And baking a cake has nothing to with providing for common good (for the benefit of all) of all citizens...as does military, law enforcement..

@logicisforsquares said:

If the gun laws were passed, they were clearly able to pass the constitutional sniff test. Cal, you are playing mental gymnastics because the banks are opposed to laws you like.

no, I'm not. "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "whatever gun control you want, it's fine.".

you know that. Here:

If ICE was acting illegally, beating up innocent people, raiding homes based on false red flag reports and kidnapping women, etc...

I certainly would not contribute to that.

But ICE is following our justified immigration law. There is no legit claim of objection. Corrupt political motives are not allowed.

Try this:

   In the military, you are not to follow an illegal order. Now, if a commander says "shoot that innocent boy over there", of course, you tell him you will not, why,  and refuse.

   but you can't refuse to dig a ditch because you don't want to, by saying it's an illegal order. that is nonsense.

@mld-woody said:

Next we're going to be told an individual needs to house troops in their home if the govt asks.

Well we wouldn’t want to upset the crown and their men.

@calfoxwc said:

you have to read my posts, Logic. the gun laws would be unConstitutional - further past where they are, they would be violating our Constitution. Illegal aliens violated our law by illegally coming here. Trying to stop ICE from enforcing perfectly justifiable law over left wing politics is just dangerous and corrupt.

   you are trying to defend a business refusing to do biz with ICE over politically leftwing refusal to abide by Constitutional Law.

   and "a democrat" is not a major Dept of our Government. I wouldn't do business with bloomberg, say, regardless.

If the gun laws were passed, they were clearly able to pass the constitutional sniff test. Cal, you are playing mental gymnastics because the banks are opposed to laws you like.

@logicisforsquares said:

So Cal, if you ran a business and a Democrat in office needed supplies from your store to help them enforce gun laws (say supplies for building an ATF facility), you would do it and not ask them to maybe move along to another vendor?

you have to read my posts, Logic. the gun laws would be unConstitutional - further past where they are, they would be violating our Constitution. Illegal aliens violated our law by illegally coming here. Trying to stop ICE from enforcing perfectly justifiable law over left wing politics is just dangerous and corrupt.

   you are trying to defend a business refusing to do biz with ICE over politically leftwing refusal to abide by Constitutional Law.

   and "a democrat" is not a major Dept of our Government. I wouldn't do business with bloomberg, say, regardless.

@logicisforsquares said:

I didn’t know so many comrades were here.

Next we're going to be told an individual needs to house troops in their home if the govt asks.

@calfoxwc said:

not in violation of federal immigration policy. by your...logic, Logic, businesses have the power to coerce the federal government to fail if they have a chance. Federal law, unless unConstitutional, rules. You can't not pay taxes because you "disagree with the gov".

Banks are not a stand alone business - the loans are federally backed up. There are plenty of laws regulating the banking industry.

Banks don't get to refuse to cooperate with the feds based on a dishonest whim of disobedience.

So Cal, if you ran a business and a Democrat in office needed supplies from your store to help them enforce gun laws (say supplies for building an ATF facility), you would do it and not ask them to maybe move along to another vendor?

@logicisforsquares said:

Disagreeing with someone or a govt agency and choosing to withhold your business should be the right of every citizen/business. Whether that be having to bake a cake or offer banking services.

not in violation of federal immigration policy. by your...logic, Logic, businesses have the power to coerce the federal government to fail if they have a chance. Federal law, unless unConstitutional, rules. You can't not pay taxes because you "disagree with the gov".

Banks are not a stand alone business - the loans are federally backed up. There are plenty of laws regulating the banking industry.

Banks don't get to refuse to cooperate with the feds based on a dishonest whim of disobedience.

@gorka said:

With each  post logic and reason diminishes and absurdity takes over..... from the guy with "logic" in his name.

This is a black and white issue, no gray areas.. It is the duty of the Federal government to protect it's citizens. ICE is a federal law enforcement agency. Laws prohibiting attempts to undermine whether directly or indirectly are legit.

Disagreeing with someone or a govt agency and choosing to withhold your business should be the right of every citizen/business. Whether that be having to bake a cake or offer banking services.

@logicisforsquares said:

If you are a private citizen who refuses to play ball with certain government entities, should they be able to yank your social security? 

With each  post logic and reason diminishes and absurdity takes over..... from the guy with "logic" in his name.

This is a black and white issue, no gray areas.. It is the duty of the Federal government to protect it's citizens. ICE is a federal law enforcement agency. Laws prohibiting attempts to undermine whether directly or indirectly are legit.

https://moneyweek.com/494957/ten-years-on-was-it-right-to-bail-out-the-banks

The banks did not wake up one morning and decide to discriminate against ICE they did it because of democratic pressure so for these same banks to get pressure from republicans (because they do receive tax payer govt aid) to reverse their discriminatory lending is fair play. Right now it is being proposed and I hope it passes and becomes law.

@oldbrownsfan said:

The ICE agency being discriminated against are also tax payers.

Is anyone stopping them from shopping to another bank? The banks only have one government to shop from and they are forced to pay taxes towards.

 If anything this draws attention to why they shouldn’t have bailed the banks out. It would have dispersed the number of major banks and given consumers, thus ICE contractors options.

@logicisforsquares said:

If they are paying taxes into the system, wouldn’t it mean they are payrolling the aid like any other government aid?

The ICE agency being discriminated against are also tax payers.

@oldbrownsfan said:

The simple answer is if a private business does not want govt interference in how they run their business than they should not take any tax payer govt aid.

If they are paying taxes into the system, wouldn’t it mean they are payrolling the aid like any other government aid?

@logicisforsquares said:

If you are a private citizen who refuses to play ball with certain government entities, should they be able to yank your social security? 

The simple answer is if a private business does not want govt interference in how they run their business than they should not take any tax payer govt aid.

@oldbrownsfan said:

I think it means if a private business does not want govt interference in how to run their business than it has to stay clear of taking any tax payer govt aid as almost all govt aid comes with strings attached. 

If you are a private citizen who refuses to play ball with certain government entities, should they be able to yank your social security? 

@logicisforsquares said:

That is a giant gulf of gray area. Does that mean every business or citizen (remember corporations enjoy the same rights as a citizen) must do business with a federal entity when confronted or else they no longer receive the protections of a tax paying US citizen? 
 

This is a rare instance when I defend US banking. They were welfare queens in the past who should have been subject to market forces.

I think it means if a private business does not want govt interference in how to run their business than it has to stay clear of taking any tax payer govt aid as almost all govt aid comes with strings attached. 

@oldbrownsfan said:

LOL..see highlighted part comrade

“Some of our nation’s largest banks have decided to cater to the radical left’s ‘woke’ agenda by abusing their systemic influence in our economy to deprive law-abiding federal contractors of banking services critical to their business,” Rubio said. “Banks have a right to deny funds to certain businesses, but they shouldn’t enjoy taxpayer-provided guarantees if they are undermining the public policy of the United States.”

That is a giant gulf of gray area. Does that mean every business or citizen (remember corporations enjoy the same rights as a citizen) must do business with a federal entity when confronted or else they no longer receive the protections of a tax paying US citizen? 
 

This is a rare instance when I defend US banking. They were welfare queens in the past who should have been subject to market forces.

@logicisforsquares said:

So again we want to control private business entities, comrade? 

LOL..see highlighted part comrade

“Some of our nation’s largest banks have decided to cater to the radical left’s ‘woke’ agenda by abusing their systemic influence in our economy to deprive law-abiding federal contractors of banking services critical to their business,” Rubio said. “Banks have a right to deny funds to certain businesses, but they shouldn’t enjoy taxpayer-provided guarantees if they are undermining the public policy of the United States.”