Bank of America cuts off the makers of military style weapons

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I suspect the real reason is otherwise. Yeah, they may be making a play for left leaning customers, but I'd bet the real reason is they see bad things in the gun manufacturers future and are playing it safe by not making the loans.

Taxpayers bailed them out to the tune of 45 billion if I recall right. Half of which came from 2nd Amendment supporters and they should remember that.

I don't know about that. The National Teacher's Union threatened to take their business from Wells Fargo yesterday if Wells Fargo doesn't end all NRA-associated accounts and transactions. I suspect Wells is holding out a bit on a decision for the SCOTUS union ruling to come out. That ruling will remove any teeth these unions have and likely bankrupt them in their present form as reluctant members flock away from them in droves, which means Wells really doesn't need to address the union's demands.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Public accommodation seems to be bandied about when it comes to bakeries.

Anything else?



Caveat emptor!

a reply to: DBCowboy

It depends. Are manufacturers of such weapons a protected class?

“A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples,” Lampe wrote. “No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.”

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: Phage


Public accommodation only refers to protected classes?

Interesting.

So a baker could refuse to sell to a gun owner because a gun owner isn't a "protected class".


Interesting now that we live in a caste society.

Where different classes of people are afforded different levels of rights.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So a baker could refuse to sell to a gun owner because a gun owner isn't a "protected class".

I suppose so. A restaurant can refuse to serve someone who isn't wearing a tie.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

So a baker could refuse to sell to a gun owner because a gun owner isn't a "protected class".

I suppose so. A restaurant can refuse to serve someone who isn't wearing a tie.

So public accommodation only refers to protected classes.


A business is free to discriminate against an individual if they aren't in a class that is protected.


Sounds like an elitist caste system to me.



I guess we aren't all equal under the law.

a reply to: DBCowboy

A business is free to discriminate against an individual if they aren't in a class that is protected.

No. That's not the way it works.

A business cannot discriminate against anyone because they are part of a protected class.

A restaurant can refuse service to a gay person because they are not wearing a tie, but not because they are gay.

a reply to: Phage

It’s all for show hippy boy

The fifth largest institutional investor is Bank of America which holds 8.8 million shares, or 3.10% of Lockheed Martin stock which was worth over $2.8 billion in March of 2018. Bank of America, of course, is one of the largest financial institutions on earth.

Read more: Top 5 Shareholders of Lockheed Martin (LMT) | Investopedia www.investopedia.com...

a reply to: Phage



But the bank is discriminating against gun manufacturers.

What "tie" rule did the gun manufacturers break?

a reply to: DBCowboy
The restaurant has a dress code and the bank has a policy. You make ugly semi's, you don't get a loan.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy
The restaurant has a dress code and the bank has a policy. You make ugly semi's, you don't get a loan.

So the bank discriminated.

QED.

If Chase and Wells Fargo follow a similar policy then I would say maybe congress needs to get involved.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy
The restaurant has a dress code and the bank has a policy. You make ugly semi's, you don't get a loan.

So the bank discriminated.

QED.

Yes. Legally.
I said that.
Just like a restaurant with a dress code. They won't let anyone in without a tie and the bank won't make a loan to manufactures of ugly semi's.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
If Chase and Wells Fargo follow a similar policy then I would say maybe congress needs to get involved.

Like I said:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Meanwhile....
m.huffpost.com...

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
If Chase and Wells Fargo follow a similar policy then I would say maybe congress needs to get involved.

Like I said:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't use logic to try and mold me into a commie
I'll have none of it!

a reply to: Fermy

I'm curious...

Remington brings in around $900,000,000 a year, and Sturm Ruger pulls in a little over $600,000,000. Couldn't quickly find Vista Outdoor....

The question is...

How much of that pie does Bank Of America have it's hands on? And do they really give a sh!t if they let go of it. Like Blaine91555 mentioned, they could foresee a future fallout.

Will the amount of business they lose, be less than the amount they gain through this massive publicity stunt?

a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Remington has asked for loans totaling $338 million to be approved by April 29, but only a portion has been approved so far.

The $75 million loan approved on Tuesday is the "interim amount to get them through the interim period until they get to that final hearing on the additional amount that they're going to need," said Sarah Foss, legal analyst at Debtwire.

money.cnn.com...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Now that paints a different picture. Thanks for the info.

It is quite comical for a bank like BofA to try to take some moral high ground on this issue. I've been meaning to close my BofA accounts, maybe this is the excuse I need now.