bank of (un)Amerika freezes gun makers accounts

[Crabtownboy]

I do not know why liberals have to have everything explained to them. Simply acting on beliefs is not a virtue itself and can be immoral. Much like freezing accounts because you do not personally like the nature of the business. That is harassment and it is immoral.

So no account should ever be frozen. It is immoral to freeze an account of a person, company or country regardless of what they are doing with the money.

You are illogical when you say acting on beliefs is not a virtue itself and can be immoral. I agree the action may be immoral. But also the action may be moral. It is not all one and not any of the other regardless of circumstance.

Have you thought that we do not have the entire story of to whom the gun parts were being sold? Would you approve the freeze if it were proven they were selling them to terrorists organizations?

Rev. you thinking is too narrow. Try taking a broader view before making rash, illogical statements.

 

[Salty]

If given the opportunity, who would freeze the account of Planned Parenthood?

 

[Aaron]

A company policy may reflect the beliefs of its board of directors, CEO, etc.

The stench of hypocrisy is thick in this thread.

If it were Chick fil-A you'd be arguing that a company policy must be divorced from the beliefs of its board.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If given the opportunity, who would freeze the account of Planned Parenthood?

Of course that would be a noble and courageous bank that would do that!

 

[Arbo]

So no account should ever be frozen. It is immoral to freeze an account of a person, company or country regardless of what they are doing with the money.

Frozen by a private entity without a court order, no. It is the account holder's money, not the bank's to make inaccessible at whim. If a bank wants to close an account and refunds the holder, I've little problem with that.

 

[Revmitchell]

So no account should ever be frozen. It is immoral to freeze an account of a person, company or country regardless of what they are doing with the money.

You are illogical when you say acting on beliefs is not a virtue itself and can be immoral. I agree the action may be immoral. But also the action may be moral. It is not all one and not any of the other regardless of circumstance.

Have you thought that we do not have the entire story of to whom the gun parts were being sold? Would you approve the freeze if it were proven they were selling them to terrorists organizations?

Rev. you thinking is too narrow. Try taking a broader view before making rash, illogical statements.

Rash is this post.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Rash is this post.

Only went to where your illogical post lead.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

CBT, the Bank's problem is they took action without fair warning to the customer. The customer is an otherwise legitimate business. The money on deposit are proceeds of legal business transactions. If the Bank doesn't want this particular customer's business, fine, it's the Bank's right and prerogative. Nobody here is saying B of A doesn't have the right and prerogative to refuse service to a particular customer and industry.

But, freezing a customer's accounts containing otherwise legal funds without a court order borders on theft.

 

[Revmitchell]

CBT, the Bank's problem is they took action without fair warning to the customer. The customer is an otherwise legitimate business. The money on deposit are proceeds of legal business transactions. If the Bank doesn't want this particular customer's business, fine, it's the Bank's right and prerogative. Nobody here is saying B of A doesn't have the right and prerogative to refuse service to a particular customer and industry.

But, freezing a customer's accounts containing otherwise legal funds without a court order borders on theft.

He doesn't care about the truth of the matter. He wants to defend someone taking action against a gun manufacture. He understands the true details. He is just ignoring them.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I await his response even if it's only a concurrence. An analogous action would have been a bank's freezing the deposits of a local NAACP chapter back in the day for "fomenting civil disorder."

He doesn't care about the truth of the matter. He wants to defend someone taking action against a gun manufacture. He understands the true details. He is just ignoring them.

 

[Salty]

If given the opportunity, who would freeze the account of Planned Parenthood?

Of course that would be a noble and courageous bank that would do that!

Thank you C4K

For everyone else - Let me ask the question this way -

Would it be inmoral for BOA (or any bank) to freeze the account of Planned Parenthood?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Without warning or a court order, it's not only immoral; it would be illegal to freeze currently held deposits. That's not to say it would be immoral or illegal for a bank to refuse to accept PP's business in the first place. They could also tell PP they have x number of days to find another bank to do business with or a cashier's check for PP's funds on deposit will be sent to their address of record. Both of the above actions are legal and moral.

SNIP
For everyone else - Let me ask the question this way -

Would it be inmoral for BOA (or any bank) to freeze the account of Planned Parenthood?

 

[Robert Snow]

Thank you C4K

For everyone else - Let me ask the question this way -

Would it be inmoral for BOA (or any bank) to freeze the account of Planned Parenthood?

Certainly it would be immoral. It's not the bank's job to worry about how money is spent. They simply need to do their job and keep our money safe.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thank you C4K

For everyone else - Let me ask the question this way -

Would it be inmoral for BOA (or any bank) to freeze the account of Planned Parenthood?

It is wrong for any bank to freeze any assets unless it is in their terms and conditions. The thought and intent of such a bank might be good in their own eyes, but it would still be wrong.

I am still suspecting there is much more to this story than meets the eye. Something is not quite right here.

 

[Mexdeaf]

CBT, the Bank's problem is they took action without fair warning to the customer. The customer is an otherwise legitimate business. The money on deposit are proceeds of legal business transactions. If the Bank doesn't want this particular customer's business, fine, it's the Bank's right and prerogative. Nobody here is saying B of A doesn't have the right and prerogative to refuse service to a particular customer and industry.

But, freezing a customer's accounts containing otherwise legal funds without a court order borders on theft.

This I agree with.

 

[mont974x4]

I don't have a problem with BofA deciding to not do business with someone. That is their right. The problem is their using this occasion for activism in an underhanded manner.