Paul Birch

I don't think this is quite right. An ordinary limited company, even a "public" limited company, is still only a private association of individuals, and thus should be at liberty to discriminate. It does need to keep within its charter, which in most cases would prevent the board of directors turning down good business on the basis of their personal prejudices (their responsibility being to all the shareholders, not merely those who agree with them, even if that's a majority). However, if the shareholders invested their money knowing that the firm's charter says, eg, we won't do business with organisations that don't approve of homosexuality, or, perhaps, we won't do business with organisations that do approve of homosexuality, then discrimination on that basis is not only permissible but obligatory.

Government agencies, and public services operating under the police power of the state, are in another category. They should not discriminate among citizens on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or political persuasion (except I suppose where those characteristics are directly relevant - like, oh, choosing a black to spy among the Africans).

The problem with the banks - along with other regulated industries like utilities and professions like dentistry - is that they are not open to free competition. There are severe regulatory restrictions on entry. They are therefore quasi-governmental agencies, relying upon governmental patronage and privilege. If, then, these regulations effectively prevent groups who are discriminated against creating their own competing services, such discrimination is wrong.

It's not the size of the organisation that counts, or its corporate ownership; it's the forcible exclusion from the market. If a supermarket excludes Christians, then Christians can set up their own supermarkets; but if the banks exclude Christians, then the Christians will not in general be allowed to set up their own banks, a privilege the state can and does refuse, so the Christians will be oppressed. That's where the crucial difference lies.

its not banks as a whole its just one bank

Christian voice are perfectly able to open an account with another bank

Paul Birch

If so, fine. But I strongly suspect that pressure will be brought upon other banks to toe the politically correct line and refuse to deal with Christian Voice. This is what happened to the BNP. I doubt whether the Co-op bank did this entirely off its own bat.

as far as we are aware from the articles that we have read about this issue no other bank has come out and said that they will not accept chistian voices account

and again there is no info to suggest this was anyones decision but the banks

Paul Birch

Why would they do that? All they'd have to do is wait and turn down any application that CV may make.

There's no public evidence that I know of either way. I wouldn't expect there to be.

BritishPatriot

But all the banks have the power to discriminate customers. If they use their power then there is no longer freedom for customers. There would need to be at least one bank that doesn't discriminate. This wasn't the case for the BNP.

As you believe in the freedom for any organizations to discriminate, do you agree with the BNP's policy to allow employers the freedom to discriminate on racial grounds?

John Carter

Don't be silly Paul. You know it becomes a separate legal identity and becomes subject to a whole heap of additional legislation the moment it gets that "Limited" status.

__________________
There are three kinds of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists, and those who haven't been paying attention.

Paul Birch

I don't understand what your objection is. A limited company is a private association of individuals with its own legal identity, subject to miscellaneous legislation. The number of competing limited companies is not restricted: any group of two or more persons can incorporate. It's only if you want to operate in one of the regulated industries like banking that you need a special licence and may be prohibited from entry.

John Carter

A limited company is essentially a separate person, created by the owners in order to avoid personal problems should things ever go belly up (let's face it, nobody in their right mind is going to want to be subject to all the requirements of running a limited company without there being major personal advantages).

Thus, as a separate entity which affords the owners protection, it should have no discriminatory opinions of its own (in fact, it can't, as it doesn't have its own opinions).

Any individual wishing to acquire financial protection through use of a limited company should forfeit some social protection from "different" customers. The state provides the directors with a mechanism to escape personal financial disaster, so the state should likewise provide the customers with a mechanism to escape the personal opinions of the directors. Two way street.

__________________
There are three kinds of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists, and those who haven't been paying attention.

Paul Birch

All right, I think I see where you're coming from. I think you misunderstand limited liability (which is basically a contractual arrangement to transfer liability between investors and managers not a privilege offered by the state, and the firm is not relieved of any liability thereby) but this is a big subject and well off the topic of this thread, so if you don't mind I'll leave it at that for now.