just so we're on the same page - there is no requirement that banks extend credit to anyone. the only requirement is that they have equal standards and don't use race, religion, sex, etc.. as a criteria
You keep asserting that. I agree that it's currently the law, and since it's the law, banks should comply. But you're not answering the question:
why should that be a requirement?
I think they also have a duty to protect people from unfair and discriminatory business practices (you can tell me if freedom from discrimination is a "right" or not).
What you
think is irrelevant. What matters is what the charter of the Government (the Constitution) states explicitly or requires implicitly. To answer your question: I don't believe that "freedom from discrimination" from
third parties is a right; certainly freedom from
government discrimination is under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that is as it should be.
In fact not just a duty but an actual interest in making sure that all their citizens are treated fairly and equally not only to protect their rights but for the actual health of the market.
First of all, I think you're somewhat confused about the concept of rights. You have a right to free speech, but that right only means that it's the
Government can't control your speech; someone who happens to operate a book publishing business, for example, isn't required to publish your manuscript, and your right to free speech isn't implicated. In general, no right of yours can exist at the expense of others.
Secondly, again you assert that failure to let people & businesses apply whatever criteria they want in the day-to-day business operations will, somehow, affect the health of the market. I think the current economic snafu proves otherwise; to a very large extent, the current mess we're in is because of laws that prevented businesses from making sound fiscal decisions and
mandated that they make risky loans.
The habit of redlining resulted in lower property values and ecouraged landlord abandonment (I copied that text from Wiki - just fyi)
Perhaps you should have read and copied a bit more: This only happened
after a
government agency drew up maps where high-risk areas (which overwhelmingly included minority neighborhoods) were colored red. Those maps were then used by banks in evaluating loan requests, and, predictably resulted in banks denying loans to
anyone living in the red areas.
The problem there wasn't banks being racist. The problem resulted from the Government's involvement. Your claims regarding your example with Harold Camping followers are not entirely correct. Depending on what types of loans they got they could well have been denied if they gave their true reason for wanting the loan and that would not be discrimination because banks can limit lending based on the purpose of the loan.
Yet you still don't think that the bank should be able to ask and consider the religion of the applicant?
Going forward those people will have a very hard time getting a loan but not because of the reason they got the first loan but because their payment history is now tarnished....i.e. the history of repayment is the best and most valid indicator of future repayment.
W
Regarding my example of speed limits. What's the difference between me driving my car on a public road and you owning an investment property located on a public street and existing within a public rental market and an obviously public economy
There's a huge difference: you own a car that you want to operate
on the property of someone else (i.e. the Government's road). That someone else can impose rules & regulations on you (i.e. the Government can say "no faster than 65"). I, on the other hand, own the property and I'm not seeking to operate it on the property of someone else.
As for the whole "public rental market" and "obviously public economy" nonsense, it's... well... nonsense. What exactly does "public rental market" mean in this instance? How does it differ from a "private rental market"? And, similarly, what does "public economy" mean in this context? That the public is involved? Great, so? How is it different from a "private economy"?
Your example about married couples could not happen. It would violate the ECOA
Actually, some parts may not violate it, but those are details; let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they all do. What interests me is why you
think the ECOA should limit this sort of activity, and why another entity (the Government) should be able to "discriminate" based on those very same factors, by offering married couples tax incentives.
