Louisiana Bans 2 Banks over Second Amendment stance

[frigidweirdo]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

Then what would be the incentive for the Mid Western States to stay in the union and not vote themselves their own country?

Wait, what? People need incentives to stay in the Union, like an unfair advantage when it comes to elections?

Did the idea of Democracy never make it that far inland?

What incentive do Democrat states have to stay in the Union when they start of with a 3 million disadvantage when the Presidential elections take place, and have a Congress so gerrymandered that it has districts that look like weird fucking animals?

 

[emilynghiem]

But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA

The NRA is a bigger threat to the Constitution and Individual liberty than any lefty. Know that. lol.

Hmmm Natural Citizen
I'd say the Democratic Party and political skewing of the media is the biggest threat.
For pushing political beliefs and political religion, they don't even acknowledge as such,
while teaching that parties and money are lawful means of forcing govt to establish beliefs that punish citizens of other creeds who cannot comply without violating their own.
Including all the information they are leaving OUT, which is equally dangerous and exploitative.

At least with NRA they teach respect for the Constitution.
That the Second Amendment is used for DEFENDING the laws, not violating them.
At least NRA and Constitutionalist accept rebukes by the Constitution
(such as when my Christian Prolife friends accept my rebuke that their
prolife pushing and arguments can't violate due process and First Amendment beliefs
of others, and they actually ACCEPT this check unlike Democrats/liberals with no respect for Constitutional limits on govt)

The political beliefs of the Democrats includes the belief
that it's okay to impose their beliefs through govt on taxpayers and make others pay for what they believe in.

They don't believe in and don't teach respect for Constitutional limits on govt.
And that is more dangerous, to take a little knowledge and exploit the lack of knowledge of others to overpower them.

The one thing I have found that checks these groups from pushing their beliefs too far
is respect for the Constitution and limits on govt. And guess which groups respect that, and which do not....

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

Thanks frigidweirdo
Between this post of yours and the other, I can see why I resonate with you.
We both want the same thing in terms of self-government by the people first, then the rest of govt should follow and reflect/represent that.

As for PR Proportional Representation, given that States are closer to their own people, as in this case of Louisiana laws
what do you think of the idea of expanding the Electoral system where each DISTRICT has proportional reps on a panel per party in that District?

Would that better enable local citizens to represent their own beliefs per DISTRICT?
So if one school district is progun and another is antigun, could schools make their own choices
and not affect other school communities that democratically decide on other strategies and policies to fund for themselves?

Could we better get along, and enjoy equal free exercise of beliefs, and freedom from establishing beliefs of one group that another disagrees with,
if we implemented localized representation, and worked together through the party structures that represent the beliefs of that part of the population.

How would you implement PR to solve this issue of funding businesses and gun policies where people don't have to be threatened by the
policies of another group?

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'd say the Democratic Party and political skewing of the media is the biggest threat.
For pushing political beliefs and political religion, they don't even acknowledge as such,
while teaching that parties and money are lawful means of forcing govt to establish beliefs that punish citizens of other creeds who cannot comply without violating their own.
Including all the information they are leaving OUT, which is equally dangerous and exploitative.

At least with NRA they teach respect for the Constitution.
That the Second Amendment is used for DEFENDING the laws, not violating them.
At least NRA and Constitutionalist accept rebukes by the Constitution
(such as when my Christian Prolife friends accept my rebuke that their
prolife pushing and arguments can't violate due process and First Amendment beliefs
of others, and they actually ACCEPT this check unlike Democrats/liberals with no respect for Constitutional limits on govt)

The political beliefs of the Democrats includes the belief
that it's okay to impose their beliefs through govt on taxpayers and make others pay for what they believe in.

They don't believe in and don't teach respect for Constitutional limits on govt.
And that is more dangerous, to take a little knowledge and exploit the lack of knowledge of others to overpower them.

The one thing I have found that checks these groups from pushing their beliefs too far
is respect for the Constitution and limits on govt. And guess which groups respect that, and which do not....

What's gawn awn, Emily. How's it going? I haven't seen you around. Off the top of my head, the NRA is an active proponent in function and vocally of the federal government's infringement against the 1st, 5th, 4th, and 10th Amendments. Likely a few more, if I took time to think about it.Unfortunately, the people love them for it. It just goes to show how little the people understand their Constitution and, more importantly, how little the proper role of government is understood.

Start a topic, if ya want., I'll debate it with you. I'm kind of in the middle of drawing a network blueprint at the moment, though, in one window and back and forth to the other.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I personally believe the policies of these banks are an infringement on the rights of Louisiana citizens,” Treasurer John Schroder said in a statement. “As a veteran and former member of law enforcement, I take the Second Amendment very seriously." ibid

Obviously Schroder doesn’t take the Second Amendment ‘seriously’ at all, given his ignorance of the law and how the Amendment protects the rights it enshrines.

Only government has the capacity to potentially violate citizens’ rights, not private entities such as banks.

The Second Amendment places restrictions only on government regulatory policies, the authority to do so does not extend to private entities; one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.

RE: one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.
Yeah C_Clayton_Jones
Sure it's only the govt that has the ability to violate rights.

How quickly you and others backtrack on this principle
when it come to private business people deciding whether or not
to provide certain types of birth control, or bake certain messages
on cakes to serve at weddings.

Discrimination is discrimination.
Oh, except when it's someone YOU agree to discriminate against???
???

(See also "Discrimination by Creed,"
by any other name....)

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

 

[irosie91]

But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA

New York People do not depend on 'POSSUM STEW or
those critters which are thrown into the BRUNSWICK POT

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

Then what would be the incentive for the Mid Western States to stay in the union and not vote themselves their own country?

Dear Slyhunter I thought it is was clear that any states or combination of states
is stronger and more protected by national security from outside invaders or attackers
by remaining as one America.

My question that is similar to yours, is not by State but by PARTY.

What incentives do we need to give PARTIES to encourage them to fund their own policies
and be able to serve all the members who want a certain policy, where this does not require going through federal govt to achieve that goal of theirs?

For example, in order to incentivize the Democratic party leaders and members to set up and run their own Health Care through their own Party,
do they need:
* 100% tax breaks for investing in their own health care?
* a policy that converts prison facilities and resources into medical programs with teaching hospitals and internships to serve public demand instead of just prison inmates
* a system of Microlending where the big companies and wealthier taxpayers can VOLUNTEER to donate and invest in health care reforms
instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for govt health care against Constitutional beliefs and principles
* or perhaps a split between internal and external functions of govt, where the social programs are run by a mirror administration, similar to state and federal offices, but is completely voluntary to fund and participate in, but has all the same power to set up policies and programs democratically for members who agree to that administration and terms. This way, all parties can still elect their own officials and fund whatever they believe in without interfering with others' ability to do the same. (and only where all parties and people AGREE to fund and comply with certain policies and programs, are those qualified as public laws that taxpayers pay for)

What does it take for PARTIES to become self-governing
similar to how the Catholic Church runs its own programs and funding voluntarily through its membership
and doesn't force that on the public to pay for and run through govt. They do it themselves.

Yet the Catholic Church and its members and programs work in this country
as well as in others without having to defend itself and its borders as a "separation nation"

Why can't political parties govern themselves and their members,
and still respect the sovereignty of States and also not impose their beliefs on the rest of the nation through federal govt???

 

[emilynghiem]

"I personally believe the policies of these banks are an infringement on the rights of Louisiana citizens,” Treasurer John Schroder said in a statement. “As a veteran and former member of law enforcement, I take the Second Amendment very seriously." ibid

Obviously Schroder doesn’t take the Second Amendment ‘seriously’ at all, given his ignorance of the law and how the Amendment protects the rights it enshrines.

Only government has the capacity to potentially violate citizens’ rights, not private entities such as banks.

The Second Amendment places restrictions only on government regulatory policies, the authority to do so does not extend to private entities; one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.

RE: one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.
Yeah C_Clayton_Jones
Sure it's only the govt that has the ability to violate rights.

How quickly you and others backtrack on this principle
when it come to private business people deciding whether or not
to provide certain types of birth control, or bake certain messages
on cakes to serve at weddings.

Discrimination is discrimination.
Oh, except when it's someone YOU agree to discriminate against???
???

(See also "Discrimination by Creed,"
by any other name....)

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Then how would you fix the problem being complained about C_Clayton_Jones

 

[Skull Pilot]

it is not possible for an individual or a business to violate your rights.

The Bill of rights is a protection from the government not from other people.

You have no 1st, 2nd, or any other right in my home or if you are an employee, at my business.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bank policies concerning funds used to purchase firearms still has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, no rights are being violated, Louisiana lawmakers are being ignorant and ridiculous.

The Second Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed; not between and among private persons and entities.

 

[Natural Citizen]

it is not possible for an individual or a business to violate your rights.

The Bill of rights is a protection from the government not from other people.

You have no 1st, 2nd, or any other right in my home or if you are an employee, at my business.

Well. So long as you're paying your property taxes to the government, and conforming to the government's zoning rules telling you what you can and can't do on it, and assuming they don't want your property via eminent domain, and so long as you're renewing your business ''license'' that they granted you when you had to ask them for permission to operate a business and when you granted them jurisdiction over it via that request for license, you can whistle Dixie all you want. Yay Dixie!

About those rights you mentioned, rights are unalienable, people don't lose their rights on your property, but you do have the right to freedom of association, you can tell them to leave, for instance. And you can screen your emplyees and make reasonable rules like not wanting any weapons on your work site. That's something different.

 

[Slyhunter]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

Then what would be the incentive for the Mid Western States to stay in the union and not vote themselves their own country?

Wait, what? People need incentives to stay in the Union, like an unfair advantage when it comes to elections?

Did the idea of Democracy never make it that far inland?

What incentive do Democrat states have to stay in the Union when they start of with a 3 million disadvantage when the Presidential elections take place, and have a Congress so gerrymandered that it has districts that look like weird fucking animals?

You didn't answer my question.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

Thanks frigidweirdo
Between this post of yours and the other, I can see why I resonate with you.
We both want the same thing in terms of self-government by the people first, then the rest of govt should follow and reflect/represent that.

As for PR Proportional Representation, given that States are closer to their own people, as in this case of Louisiana laws
what do you think of the idea of expanding the Electoral system where each DISTRICT has proportional reps on a panel per party in that District?

Would that better enable local citizens to represent their own beliefs per DISTRICT?
So if one school district is progun and another is antigun, could schools make their own choices
and not affect other school communities that democratically decide on other strategies and policies to fund for themselves?

Could we better get along, and enjoy equal free exercise of beliefs, and freedom from establishing beliefs of one group that another disagrees with,
if we implemented localized representation, and worked together through the party structures that represent the beliefs of that part of the population.

How would you implement PR to solve this issue of funding businesses and gun policies where people don't have to be threatened by the
policies of another group?

I'd say PR works better under any situation.

As for some places being pro-gun and others anti-gun, it doesn't really work. You either have guns in society or you don't. Without physical borders between places in order to try and stop the inflow of guns, you'll have problems.

Society needs to make a decision one way or another within those physical borders. States aren't going to have physical borders, so it needs to be decided at a Federal level.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

Then what would be the incentive for the Mid Western States to stay in the union and not vote themselves their own country?

Wait, what? People need incentives to stay in the Union, like an unfair advantage when it comes to elections?

Did the idea of Democracy never make it that far inland?

What incentive do Democrat states have to stay in the Union when they start of with a 3 million disadvantage when the Presidential elections take place, and have a Congress so gerrymandered that it has districts that look like weird fucking animals?

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did. Now are you going to respond to what I said or play silly games?

 

[anotherlife]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

No because those banks are not private any more. In the past, when bank secrecy was a thing, they were private. Now they are just a privately run branch of the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

No because those banks are not private any more. In the past, when bank secrecy was a thing, they were private. Now they are just a privately run branch of the government.

Nonsense.

 

[Darkwind]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

Banks can actually afford to hire attorneys.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would say so in the first clause.

Incorrect. Understanding the language is paramount.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it is not possible for an individual or a business to violate your rights.

The Bill of rights is a protection from the government not from other people.

You have no 1st, 2nd, or any other right in my home or if you are an employee, at my business.

Well. So long as you're paying your property taxes to the government, and conforming to the government's zoning rules telling you what you can and can't do on it, and assuming they don't want your property via eminent domain, and so long as you're renewing your business ''license'' that they granted you when you had to ask them for permission to operate a business and when you granted them jurisdiction over it via that request for license, you can whistle Dixie all you want. Yay Dixie!

About those rights you mentioned, rights are unalienable, people don't lose their rights on your property, but you do have the right to freedom of association, you can tell them to leave, for instance. And you can screen your emplyees and make reasonable rules like not wanting any weapons on your work site. That's something different.

Not really it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

The Elite giving commands to the serfs. Nothing else.

 

[RodISHI]

Here's my two cents worth; if a company or its assets is traded on Wall St. it is not a private company. Period. Secondly, the 'bank' acquiesced its authority to the State when it agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained in the Charter issued to said Bank by the State. The Secretary of State is the legal representative of the people of the State who elected the Secretary. As a representative of the People the Secretary is thereby a Witness to said acquiescence of said Bank. No foreign entity or person owning shares or otherwise has authority to violate any citizen's right be they State or Federal Constitution based rights. If such were the case Charters would not be required. Anywhere.