Banks at it again, Targeting Spikes Tactical now

[easy rider]

Huh? I just said they are on a list of not to use.

I just do all my banking through NFCU or USAA. I move alot and I probably wont stay in Texas for too long(not the place I grew up in anymore and its way too populated for me) so the local banks dont fit my needs but thanks for sharing for those folks who are curious about getting away from the larger banks

I heard California is becoming less populated.

 

[MTA]

I heard California is becoming less populated.

Id rather guzzle a bottle of clorox, but thanks for the suggestion

 

[Younggun]

It wasn't my idea, it was the NFL. We already have social media platforms bias against conservatives so I am just surprised so many are in favor of it here.

That is a strawman. No one has claimed to be in favor of these business choices. But just as I may not be in favor of what someone says, I am in favor of their right to say it.

What about cross necklaces? Should businesses ban customers who wear those too?

They generally shouldn’t. But they have the (unrespected)right.

(Good thing we don't live in a democracy......

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

Yes it is. The founders of our republic specifically avoided a direct democracy due to its threat to individual liberties. It was also set up so that the fed gov was only meant to help settle disputes between states and provide for national security. It was never intended to regulate business practices within states or slowly encroach on the sovereignty of the states or the individuals within.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[avvidclif]

It wasn't my idea, it was the NFL. We already have social media platforms bias against conservatives so I am just surprised so many are in favor of it here. What about cross necklaces? Should businesses ban customers who wear those too? You'll seem stuck on added govt. Regulations. You know that is primarily what Congress does when on session right? I see it as 2 distinct issues. Good thing we don't live in a democracy......

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

Read my comments and understand. I am AGAINST government regulations.

 

[sharkey]

Read my comments and understand. I am AGAINST government regulations.

No, you made that clear. So govt. should not regulate business or anything at all? If no business regulation than you purely expect the businesses to regulate themselves thru pure capitalism? A bit hypocritical don't you think? Do you celebrate any govt. actions where the federal govt. does something positive to guarantee your constitutional rights? Just as businesses do some things well and some terribly, the feds, state, and municipalities do the same thing.

 

[easy rider]

No, you made that clear. So govt. should not regulate business or anything at all? If no business regulation than you purely expect the businesses to regulate themselves thru pure capitalism? A bit hypocritical don't you think? Do you celebrate any govt. actions where the federal govt. does something positive to guarantee your constitutional rights? Just as businesses do some things well and some terribly, the feds, state, and municipalities do the same thing.

What constitutional right are you referring to?

 

[sharkey]

What constitutional right are you referring to?

The Heller decision off the top of my head.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

The Heller decision off the top of my head.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That is a ruling towards the 2nd amendment and has nothing to do with how a bank does business.

 

[Younggun]

That is a ruling towards the 2nd amendment and has nothing to do with how a bank does business.

Not only that, but it was a ruling AGAINST government regulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

That is a strawman. No one has claimed to be in favor of these business choices. But just as I may not be in favor of what someone says, I am in favor of their right to say it.

Splain how that is a strawman argument. So there is no correlation btw a bank banning a customer because of the business they are involved in and the NFL banning officers from being armed at their games (doesn't apply in TX last I checked)?

They generally shouldn’t. But they have the (unrespected)right.

I don't think I ever said they currently didn't have the right to do so but I am saying it is wrong and something should be done to not allow it. Seeing that the businesses are not going to regulate themselves, govt. steps in just like they have before but you'll would rather have people/businesses be discriminated against (as long as it does not include a protected class) rather than have the govt. enforce anything. What "rights" does a corporate entity have? Are they to be given the same Constitutional rights as citizens?? Perhaps the lawyer that rails against LE can come here and splain it.

Yes it is. The founders of our republic specifically avoided a direct democracy due to its threat to individual liberties. It was also set up so that the fed gov was only meant to help settle disputes between states and provide for national security. It was never intended to regulate business practices within states or slowly encroach on the sovereignty of the states or the individuals within.

Exactly. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. What happens when a majority of business' discriminate against lawful gun owners since you don't think govt. should step in to regulate it? You also mention the govt. was never intended to regulate business practices within states. First, I assume you mean the federal govt. and secondly, this doesn't apply since the bank obviously is involved in interstate commerce. Pssst, the feds encroached on the sovereignty of the states a long time ago.

 

[sharkey]

That is a ruling towards the 2nd amendment and has nothing to do with how a bank does business.

But you asked about Constitutional rights and I gave you the answer. Are you saying because there is no Constitutional right for a lawful business to finance with a bank they are chit out of luck? If so, my answer is the govt. regulates many things that have nothing to do with Constitutional rights, many of them actual laws. So if not a Republic form of govt. created by founders much smarter than you or I, then who??

 

[easy rider]

But you asked about Constitutional rights and I gave you the answer. Are you saying because there is no Constitutional right for a lawful business to finance with a bank they are chit out of luck? If so, my answer is the govt. regulates many things that have nothing to do with Constitutional rights, many of them actual laws. So if not a Republic form of govt. created by founders much smarter than you or I, then who??

You had said that the government should regulate them to protect our constitutional rights, and I was asking which constitutional rights you were referring to. Being able to do business with any business is not a constitutional right. I believe any business, corporate or not, should be able to make their own rules for their business without government mandate, that's what freedom is all about. Businesses can also suffer for their own actions, meaning, turning away customers can have an impact on potential customers too.

 

[Younggun]

Splain how that is a strawman argument. So there is no correlation btw a bank banning a customer because of the business they are involved in and the NFL banning officers from being armed at their games (doesn't apply in TX last I checked)?

It’s a strawman because you reframed the arguments being made. You phrased your question around the idea that anyone disagreeing with you was in favor of this banks decision. There is a difference between being in favor of these types of decisions, and being against expanded government regulation.

I don't think I ever said they currently didn't have the right to do so but I am saying it is wrong and something should be done to not allow it.

So something should be done to stop them from exercising their right? That doesn’t sound good.

Seeing that the businesses are not going to regulate themselves, govt. steps in just like they have before but you'll would rather have people/businesses be discriminated against

Yes, I would rather people be allowed to exercise their rights in both personal life and business than have the gov step in and start screwing things up worse.

(as long as it does not include a protected class)

Your words, not mine.

rather than have the govt. enforce anything.

The government should enforce the constitution. Nothing more. States can handle the details.

What "rights" does a corporate entity have? Are they to be given the same Constitutional rights as citizens??

Are they not owned by US citizens?

Perhaps the lawyer that rails against LE can come here and splain it.

I don’t know what this is about.

Exactly. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. What happens when a majority of business' discriminate against lawful gun owners since you don't think govt. should step in to regulate it?

Someone steps in and makes a profit because that’s how capitalism works.

You also mention the govt. was never intended to regulate business practices within states. First, I assume you mean the federal govt.

Yep.

and secondly, this doesn't apply since the bank obviously is involved in interstate commerce.

The commerce clause has been raped worse than a teen at one of Kavanaughs fictional gang bang parties.

Pssst, the feds encroached on the sovereignty of the states a long time ago.

I feel like that is a bad thing and don’t support actions to further expand fed power beyond what the founders ever intended. These encroachments are breaking the balance of power they carefully set up and are a large part of why we are currently so screwed up as a country.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[avvidclif]

This is kinda like arguing with a liberal dimocrat. It does no good because their mind is made up and you are wrong.

Like I said before. My business, my rules. If you don't like them shop elsewhere. If you want me to abide by your rules then I want the option to force you to patronize my business, like it or not.

 

[sharkey]

This is kinda like arguing with a liberal dimocrat. It does no good because their mind is made up and you are wrong.

Like I said before. My business, my rules. If you don't like them shop elsewhere. If you want me to abide by your rules then I want the option to force you to patronize my business, like it or not.

Only I am not a liberal democrat.......and Spike Tactical was following the rules. You just agree with changing the rules, moving the goal post, and limiting freedom to one side, Spike. You are right, it is kinda like arguing with a dimocrat

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[diesel1959]

Only I am not a liberal democrat.......and Spike Tactical was following the rules. You just agree with changing the rules, moving the goal post, and limiting freedom to one side, Spike. You are right, it is kinda like arguing with a dimocrat

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

IF the board of directors at Fifth Third chooses to forego the pleasure of doing business with firearms-related manufacturers/sellers, then that's their choice. A choice that they can freely choose. I just don't want the government putting fat fingers on the scale and pushing banks towards that outcome.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Only I am not a liberal democrat.......and Spike Tactical was following the rules. You just agree with changing the rules, moving the goal post, and limiting freedom to one side, Spike.

Sounds to me like you're the one limiting freedom to one side, you want to force businesses to do what YOU want, but don't believe THEY have any right to do what THEY want (or don't want).

I wouldn't want to do business with any company that does not respect citizens rights, so I take my money elsewhere.

The whole gay cake fiasco was a gov't entity doing JUST what you're proposing. No thanks.

 

[sharkey]

IF the board of directors at Fifth Third chooses to forego the pleasure of doing business with firearms-related manufacturers/sellers, then that's their choice. A choice that they can freely choose. I just don't want the government putting fat fingers on the scale and pushing banks towards that outcome.

You are exactly right and that is how it is for now. Dunno your age but is that how you felt in the 60's with the civil rights law? "Well it's not right that blacks aren't allowed to bank at First Trust and I guess they will have to find another bank to do business at but I sure don't want MY govt. getting involved. Lord knows we have enough regulations as it is."
See I am for liberty and the pursuit of happiness for EVERY citizen and legitimate business, not just for certain protected classes. The bank is truly not allowing Spikes Tactical the pursuit of their happiness and the chance to engage in lawful commerce. We all agree that is not right, we disagree on what should be done about it. Somehow and somewhere you'll think that the govt. solving this is a strike against your civil liberties. I don't.

 

[sharkey]

Sounds to me like you're the one limiting freedom to one side, you want to force businesses to do what YOU want, but don't believe THEY have any right to do what THEY want (or don't want).

I wouldn't want to do business with any company that does not respect citizens rights, so I take my money elsewhere.

The whole gay cake fiasco was a gov't entity doing JUST what you're proposing. No thanks.

"Sounds to me like...." I will say that is a great communication technique. So wanting a legitimate lawful business to have the same right to bank as other legitimate lawful businesses is limiting freedom? Again I will ask you the same Q I asked Diesel. Why are there protected classes and why shouldn't any lawful business have the ability to bank at oh I dunno, a bank? Fine take your money elsewhere...........for now. What happens when conservatives, or christians or muslims, or porno directors can't bank at certain places? ALBM - All lawful businesses matter or none matter.
I'm gonna guess you have a mortgage? What happens if every financial institution that holds mortgages decide to call the loan on every one that voted republican in the mid-term? It is obviously within their right to do so when you signed the contract. Is your chance to pursue liberty and happiness constrained? I don't doubt their is govt. tyranny in the US (hell check my other posts) but their is also corporate tyranny and both should be dealt with (I Know, I am living a pipe dream) and last I checked it was a govt. of the people for the people and as one of the people, I really don't think that asking a bank to abide by fair practices of banking for EVERYONE is a form of communism. Geez, get a grip people.

Again, this is totally different if it was a sole proprietor business which does have the right to choose who they want as customers. I would even go as far as them being able to exclude whoever regardless of protected class. In fact, there would be no protected classes in my Republic form of Govt. only citizens and non-citizens. Oh the horror..............

 

[Lunyfringe]

Ok, so you're just anti corporation... or maybe just anti bank.

Just as I don't believe I'll change your mind, there is nothing you've posted that has even remotely affected my position. Have a nice day.