Posted on 04/21/2024 9:29:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m pretty sure that anywhere there is a BoA branch, there are branches of other financial institutions.
Eschew BoA, with prejudice.
This is all part of the plan to put Christians in the closet.
[B4 THEY eschew YOU!]
I believe it would be sufficient for banks to be required to provide reasonable advance notice before de-banking any customer based on religion, ideology, etc., but that they also be required to publish their criteria for determining who they consider to be that “detestable”.
This would allow those targeted organizations the time to move where they are welcome without undue disruption. It would also cost these liberal banks plenty of business.
bkmk
!
Just in general...for virtually everyone, this is probably an era where you ought to have a primary and a ‘back-up’ account (smaller no-name bank or credit union).
If you look at the de-banking going on....these all lead to top-ten type banks, where the newer board members have some agenda to punish individuals/organizations. As the debanking occurs...if you really dug into it, the entire board will be unaware of what happened and shocked that one of their folks carried on a political agenda.
New CRA and HMDA regulations seem designed to strangle smaller banks. Thankfully, they were kept by the courts from being fully implemented.
The FDIC could issue regulations on the issue. Broadly stated, financial institutions are vested with a public purpose that should limit their ability to discriminate against customers.
We have the nation we are willing to fight for.
One of my best clients runs a real estate investment company that was originally established by his grandfather as a lender for immigrants from Europe who didn’t trust banks. I’ve learned many lessons from him over the years, and I think the market is ripe for this kind of alternative financing institution in the U.S.
I personally find it prejudicial to use a social credit score to shutdown an
account. Race, religion, et al…. They could de platform every Republican.
That is not the spirit of the law. Put the bank in receivership and be done with
it.
BofA, you no longer have a bank. Others will take over from here.
Nigel Farage and a number of other prominent conservatives were debanked by Coutts Bank (owned by NatWest)
The Financial Conduct Authority “investigated” and found no wrongdoing.
(Note that this is all occurred under a “Conservative” Government. And the UK gov’t still owns approx 40 percent of NatWest).
NatWest and Coutts executives later resigned over illegal leaking of Farage private financial information.
People need to have a backup account in a State Chartered Bank. In the UK it is more difficult, the best they can do is a credit union.
BOA was a crappy bank in the 70’s....and they still are.
In Canada there are provincial chartered banks and credit unions, but one of the risks is that all the bank to bank payments clear thru Payments.ca, which is a member controlled entity.
In the USA there is more than one Automated Clearing House, but if all these entities act together, they can debank targeted institutions and groups, just like all the social media companies censored off election “deniers”, vax critics etc.
Don’t limit it to just Christians. There need to be laws enacted against de-banking anybody for non commercial reasons as defined by low credit scores, a history of delinquency, etc. Supposed “reputation risk” should be explicitly ruled out as a legitimate reason to de-bank anyone.
Banks found guilty of such a practice need to be fined heavily for each offense and forced to reverse themselves immediately. If a pattern of such behavior is found or if banks refuse to reverse their debanking decisions when caught, they need to have their charters to operate in that state revoked.
Only conservative states will support anti-discrimination laws protecting free speech and religion.
The discrimination will intensify in blue states and I would not be surprised to see debanking laws that promote discrimination based on DEI agendas.
I was surprised to learn that “debanking” was even possible. No bank should be able to refuse service to anyone unless they are the customer is doing something illegal.
Next, maybe utilities can refuse electric or telephone service to customers whose politics or religious beliefs they disagree with. (Or maybe they already can do this.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.