3 ms·
This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the peopl
by zorpner 8y ago
This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the people who state that a corporation should be obligated to serve a non-protected class.
if private processors can deny service for no reason
Ah yes, the "no reason" of being violence-inciting Nazis. What a reasonless judgement.
- vfclists 8y agoYes Paypal denied service for no reason, or more explicitly, no stated reason. Do you see a reason stated in the termination notice?
- vfclists 8y agoIf you agree that the government should be a universal payment processor, then you must agree that the government should set itself as a universal payment processor "first", before granting the oligopolies they have licensed the right to deny service for no legal reason.
- someguydave 8y agoIt’s hard to see how the payment processors (operating under government license) are not violating the first amendment when they ban users. Perhaps someone will try that case one day.