Over the years we have seen banks close the accounts of gun stores simply because they sold a constitutionally protected item. This was wrong and the U.S. Senate telling them to back off probably helped.
I’ll grant that you might have to squint a little to see it but this is an analogous situation with the 1st Amendment:
Over the weekend, Rolling Stone broke the news that half a dozen of the bank’s clients had their banking accounts with Wells Fargo canceled with no previous warning. What do they have in common? Each has previously or is currently working in the adult entertainment industry. Some performers have held accounts with the bank for 25 years or more.
I’m a bit torn on this topic. Should a company (and/or an individual) be forced by law to do business with someone?
There is the wedding cake case for possible insight. There I was inclined to side with cake makers freedom of religion claim over the same sex couple wanting a wedding cake.
In the gun maker/distributor/seller and the adult entertainers banking cases I’m having a tougher time siding with the businesses. Sure, the Feds don’t have constitutional authority (like that has ever stopped them) to tell the banks they must do business with someone. Unless, of course, there is a “banking right” hidden in the constitution someplace. But the individual states could legislate such requirements.
Aside from the legal authority there are other issues. If a business can discriminate on the basis of occupation (assuming the risk is equivalent for the favored and disfavored occupations) then why can’t they discriminate on the basis of skin color, religion, gender, etc.? Perhaps, from a philosophical viewpoint, should they be allowed this freedom. But I’m not comfortable with that conclusion either.