All business must accept legal tender

[WorldWatcher]

In States where age discrimination is prohibited, and guns are legally available to people under 21 citibank is forcing its customers for this specific service to break the law.

I think challengers on the new terms of service would have a good chance at winning based on age discrimination in states that (a) incorporate age into their Public Accommodation laws, and (b) don't have a 21 year old purchase law.

It's unenforceable.

Not really, it would simply take complaints to their customer service line and then a investigation on their part.

Age is not considered one of the criteria under federal Public Accommodation law.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation


>>>>

 

[BlackSand]

I'm sure this will go to court n hash it out.

Probably, because it's big news and some will push back against it.

Citibank is imposing new terms in their terms of service for corporate members to use, however their are already financial institutions that limit gun sale transactions at the customer level and I don't know if they have been challenged in court.

PayPal:

"We don’t allow PayPal members to buy or sell any kind of firearm, whether it’s in working order or not. The same goes for certain firearm parts and ammunition."​

Apple Pay:

"You may not incorporate Apple Pay into a website that:" <<snip>> "firearms, weapons, or ammunition"​

Help Article
Apple Pay on the Web - Acceptable Use Guidelines - Apple Developer


>>>>

That all goes back to the fact that "credit" is not necessarily "legal tender" ...
It is simply a business agreement to which all parties must agree.

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

M point. They are preventing you from doing something legal due to their preferences.

I remember a few years ago about stories where Pharmacists didn't want to sell certain types of birth control and fill prescriptions for "morning after" pills and "abortion" pills.

Probably a lot of the same people now whining about Citibanks new terms of service were in support of the Pharmacists even though selling birth control and filling prescriptions were legal and it was due to their preferences.


Pharmacists Refusing to Fill Spark National Controversy


>>>>

 

[iceberg]

M point. They are preventing you from doing something legal due to their preferences.

Thus the fatality/futility of conservatism and the desire to refrain from being a hypocrite.

A conservative is almost forced by principle to defend a business' right to manage its own affairs.
In doing so ... They have to accept that a business may choose to manage its affairs in a way that does not support the conservatives' own desires.

They may get to a point they are fed up with Citibank ... And all they can do is refuse to use Citibank's services.
Furthermore ... Bank issued credit cards fall under larger conglomerates ... Such as Visa, MasterCard etc. ...

It would be difficult for a business in return to say they will not accept a Citibank card in protest ... Because their agreement is with someone else (Visa, MC etc.).

.

yep. we all draw our own lines in this. i just don't like a company going above the law to enforce how they feel it should be despite the law. take guns out of the picture you have to ask, what would be next?

sooner or later it can lead to something the people happy with this NOW care about LATER but then too late. they ok'd the precedent and now it will fall back on them sooner or later and the whining will go into overdrive.

 

[iceberg]

I'm sure this will go to court n hash it out.

Probably, because it's big news and some will push back against it.

Citibank is imposing new terms in their terms of service for corporate members to use, however their are already financial institutions that limit gun sale transactions at the customer level and I don't know if they have been challenged in court.

PayPal:

"We don’t allow PayPal members to buy or sell any kind of firearm, whether it’s in working order or not. The same goes for certain firearm parts and ammunition."​

Apple Pay:

"You may not incorporate Apple Pay into a website that:" <<snip>> "firearms, weapons, or ammunition"​

Help Article
Apple Pay on the Web - Acceptable Use Guidelines - Apple Developer


>>>>

yep. in the end if we're setting the rights of businesses to dictate terms, things like the "gay cakes" will come back into play. if i can tell you how to use my credit card, then i can tell you how to use my bakery.

you can't these things both ways. trying is what gets people riled up and lets the hate flow.

 

[BlackSand]

yep. we all draw our own lines in this. i just don't like a company going above the law to enforce how they feel it should be despite the law. take guns out of the picture you have to ask, what would be next?

sooner or later it can lead to something the people happy with this NOW care about LATER but then too late. they ok'd the precedent and now it will fall back on them sooner or later and the whining will go into overdrive.

That's the point of my comment ... They aren't breaking the law.
If you attempt to make it a legal issue based on desire ... You are in turn granting the authorities the power to determine what you can or cannot do.

The ... "sooner or later something is going to happen" door ... Opens in both directions.
The question would be ... "Who do you want to grant the authority to guard the door".

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yep. in the end if we're setting the rights of businesses to dictate terms, things like the "gay cakes" will come back into play. if i can tell you how to use my credit card, then i can tell you how to use my bakery.

you can't these things both ways. trying is what gets people riled up and lets the hate flow.

Right now we are discussion what "is" in reality.

If you want to discuss what "should be" that is a different discussion.

Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws at both the State and Federal level and return rights of association and property to private business entities. They should (PA Laws) should only apply to government entities as to the goods and services they provide and limit their ability to contract with or purchase from business with discriminatory business models (because government entities use taxpayer dollars).


>>>>

 

[iceberg]

yep. we all draw our own lines in this. i just don't like a company going above the law to enforce how they feel it should be despite the law. take guns out of the picture you have to ask, what would be next?

sooner or later it can lead to something the people happy with this NOW care about LATER but then too late. they ok'd the precedent and now it will fall back on them sooner or later and the whining will go into overdrive.

That's the point of my comment ... They aren't breaking the law.
If you attempt to make it a legal issue based on desire ... You are in turn granting the authorities the power to determine what you can or cannot do.

The ... "sooner or later something is going to happen" door ... Opens in both directions.
The question would be ... "Who do you want to grant the authority to guard the door".

.

good question.

in most instances i go with free enterprise vs. gov control. if citi feels this is a good decision for them then great. we'll see how it plays out. if it becomes enough of a $$$ issue, then *someone* will step up and maybe start handing out NRA VISA's that won't put these limits on their use.

let the market decide and to a good degree that is what is happening now. citi does this, people will react and we go from there.

while i want the gov to help straighten all this out, i don't want free enterprise to be held in check with regulations so let it play out and see what the market says. meanwhile, i wish the gov *would* fix background checks. that would have, to me, the biggest positive impact around.

 

[iceberg]

yep. in the end if we're setting the rights of businesses to dictate terms, things like the "gay cakes" will come back into play. if i can tell you how to use my credit card, then i can tell you how to use my bakery.

you can't these things both ways. trying is what gets people riled up and lets the hate flow.

Right now we are discussion what "is" in reality.

If you want to discuss what "should be" that is a different discussion.

Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws at both the State and Federal level and return rights of association and property to private business entities. They should (PA Laws) should only apply to government entities as to the goods and services they provide and limit their ability to contract with or purchase from business with discriminatory business models (because government entities use taxpayer dollars).


>>>>

good distinction.

 

[WorldWatcher]

good distinction.

Good distinction, lousy grammar.



Man I need to slow down and re-read what I type before hitting "Post".


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

M point. They are preventing you from doing something legal due to their preferences.

I remember a few years ago about stories where Pharmacists didn't want to sell certain types of birth control and fill prescriptions for "morning after" pills and "abortion" pills.

Probably a lot of the same people now whining about Citibanks new terms of service were in support of the Pharmacists even though selling birth control and filling prescriptions were legal and it was due to their preferences.


Pharmacists Refusing to Fill Spark National Controversy


>>>>

The difference is that in the case of the pharmacist, if there is more than one in a locality then the person in question can easily go to another. The issue only crops up when say you only have one pharmacist in say a 50 mile radius. In that case you have a compelling government interest to force them to stock it.

In the case of citibank you have a systemic attempt by them to limit the options of a legal business by creating conditions that have nothing to do with the product at hand, banking in some vague hope of looking good to SJW types.

The bank would have better standing if they decided to stop business with ALL gun sellers.

Plus with the pharmacists in question the issue is usually about abortion products, or products perceived as abortion products.

 

[BlackSand]

good question.

in most instances i go with free enterprise vs. gov control. if citi feels this is a good decision for them then great. we'll see how it plays out. if it becomes enough of a $$$ issue, then *someone* will step up and maybe start handing out NRA VISA's that won't put these limits on their use.

let the market decide and to a good degree that is what is happening now. citi does this, people will react and we go from there.

while i want the gov to help straighten all this out, i don't want free enterprise to be held in check with regulations so let it play out and see what the market says. meanwhile, i wish the gov *would* fix background checks. that would have, to me, the biggest positive impact around.

I can say this ... Whatever Citibank does ...
That's not going to stop the local gunsmith here that cannot make AR platform rifles fast enough at the moment.

He builds them all custom ... $1200 each ... You can even get one with a florescent purple stock on it if you want.
Might want to get your order in ... It'll probably be May before he can get to it.

.

 

[iceberg]

good question.

in most instances i go with free enterprise vs. gov control. if citi feels this is a good decision for them then great. we'll see how it plays out. if it becomes enough of a $$$ issue, then *someone* will step up and maybe start handing out NRA VISA's that won't put these limits on their use.

let the market decide and to a good degree that is what is happening now. citi does this, people will react and we go from there.

while i want the gov to help straighten all this out, i don't want free enterprise to be held in check with regulations so let it play out and see what the market says. meanwhile, i wish the gov *would* fix background checks. that would have, to me, the biggest positive impact around.

I can say this ... Whatever Citibank does ...
That's not going to stop the local gunsmith here that cannot make AR platform rifles fast enough at the moment.

He builds them all custom ... $1200 each ... You can even get one with a florescent purple stock on it if you want.
Might want to get your order in ... It'll probably be May before he can get to it.

.

yep. in the end this is just another pawn move at best. it will be countered and the fighting will continue.

the extremes on both sides need to back out and let people who know guns and gun laws work through this to find a solution or steps to address the core issue. all the "ban this, outlaw this" are just useless moves. the core problem is still a fundamental lack of value to human life and that is a much bigger problem we ignore while we banter on the useless things like this.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The difference is that in the case of the pharmacist, if there is more than one in a locality then the person in question can easily go to another. The issue only crops up when say you only have one pharmacist in say a 50 mile radius. In that case you have a compelling government interest to force them to stock it.

In the case of citibank you have a systemic attempt by them to limit the options of a legal business by creating conditions that have nothing to do with the product at hand, banking in some vague hope of looking good to SJW types.

The bank would have better standing if they decided to stop business with ALL gun sellers.

Plus with the pharmacists in question the issue is usually about abortion products, or products perceived as abortion products.

#1 Banking transactions to process credit cards are pretty much all electronic now. So distance isn't a factor. Can't tell you the last time somebody actually processed a credit card purchase for me using the old swipe machine with carbonless paper. As a matter of fact new credit cards that we are receiving don't even have embossed numbers anymore. So distance doesn't matter and therefore under your logic there is no compelling interest for the government to force Citibank to service corporations that violate their terms of service.

#2 RE: the pharmacists, the fact that they were abortion or products perceived as abortion products isn't the relevant point. The point was that they were legal.


>>>>

 

[BlackSand]

#2 RE: the pharmacists, the fact that they were abortion or products perceived as abortion products isn't the relevant point. The point was that they were legal.

The point is that the pharmacist thought it was necessary to tell the consumer "why" they didn't carry the prescribed medication.
It would have been just as simple and legal to refer the consumer to a pharmacy that "might" carry the prescribed medication.

By no means is a pharmacist required to provide a medication they do not have in stock.

.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is that in the case of the pharmacist, if there is more than one in a locality then the person in question can easily go to another. The issue only crops up when say you only have one pharmacist in say a 50 mile radius. In that case you have a compelling government interest to force them to stock it.

In the case of citibank you have a systemic attempt by them to limit the options of a legal business by creating conditions that have nothing to do with the product at hand, banking in some vague hope of looking good to SJW types.

The bank would have better standing if they decided to stop business with ALL gun sellers.

Plus with the pharmacists in question the issue is usually about abortion products, or products perceived as abortion products.

#1 Banking transactions to process credit cards are pretty much all electronic now. So distance isn't a factor. Can't tell you the last time somebody actually processed a credit card purchase for me using the old swipe machine with carbonless paper. As a matter of fact new credit cards that we are receiving don't even have embossed numbers anymore. So distance doesn't matter and therefore under your logic there is no compelling interest for the government to force Citibank to service corporations that violate their terms of service.

#2 RE: the pharmacists, the fact that they were abortion or products perceived as abortion products isn't the relevant point. The point was that they were legal.


>>>>

The issue is if say citibank is the only bank in town does it inconvenience the gun shop to have to go at least once physically to another bank further away to set up a credit card account?

The product may be legal, but the issue now goes down to 1st amendment considerations. We don't force doctors who are against abortion to do them (yet), why would forcing a pharmacist to dispense abortion causing drugs be any different?

Again, the bank would have a better argument if they decided to not work with ANY gun seller and claim their entire board is a bunch of Quakers and are non-violent.

 

[BlackSand]

We don't force doctors who are against abortion to do them (yet), why would forcing a pharmacist to dispense abortion causing drugs be any different?

The pharmacist could just leave the law out of it.
Even in states (not federal law) that may decide to require a pharmacist to dispense emergency contraceptives ... The law would be meaningless.
The pharmacist is not required to have the medication in stock.

If a patient comes with a prescription ... The pharmacist can always say ...

"I don't have that in stock at the moment.
I can order it for you and it may be here in a couple of days,
Of course it won't work then ... But I'll still charge you and/or your insurance provider for it ... Sign right here".

.

 

[martybegan]

We don't force doctors who are against abortion to do them (yet), why would forcing a pharmacist to dispense abortion causing drugs be any different?

The pharmacist could just leave the law out of it.
Even in states (not federal law) that may decide to require a pharmacist to dispense emergency contraceptives ... The law would be meaningless.
The pharmacist is not required to have the medication in stock.

If a patient comes with a prescription ... The pharmacist can always say ...

"I don't have that in stock at the moment.
I can order it for you and it may be here in a couple of days,
Of course it won't work then ... But I'll still charge you and/or your insurance provider for it ... Sign right here".

.

When people are forced to bend the law to meet their moral code, no one wins. The law shouldn't force the person in the first place unless there is a compelling government interest, i.e. one pharmacist for 50 miles, as an example.

 

[BlackSand]

When people are forced to bend the law to meet their moral code, no one wins. The law shouldn't force the person in the first place unless there is a compelling government interest, i.e. one pharmacist for 50 miles, as an example.

You mentioned bending the law ... Well ... It has never really been about the "cake" ... On either side of the argument.
My desire to buy or sell a cake is not a problem ... Until I voluntarily provide information not particularly exclusive/necessary to buying or selling a cake.

Firearms ... That may be a little different ... But the same principle.
It's really when people want to "eat their cake and have it too" that problems arise.

.

 

[martybegan]

When people are forced to bend the law to meet their moral code, no one wins. The law shouldn't force the person in the first place unless there is a compelling government interest, i.e. one pharmacist for 50 miles, as an example.

You mentioned bending the law ... Well ... It has never really been about the "cake" ... On either side of the argument.
My desire to buy or sell a cake is not a problem ... Until I voluntarily provide information not particularly exclusive/necessary to buying or selling a cake.

Firearms ... That may be a little different ... But the same principle.


.

By being forced to weasel your way out of something, you allow an unjust law to stay on the books, and encourage the control types to find a way to end your weaseling.