Chase Bank Slutshames Their Adult Performer Customers

from the which-of-them-is-more-dirty? dept

Porn. It's what the internet is for, as they say. Also, it's very hard for some people to avoid. Entire governments, too. But what about the little people with big parts that make all this wonderfully ubiquitous smut possible? It's easy to forget about the hard (ahem) working individuals that make these small businesses and big industry spurt out their wares like (insert grossest applicable analogy here). And now it's apparently difficult for those mostly-young laborers to get paid, since some banks seem to have adopted a rather convenient moral code when it comes to who can open accounts with their institutions.

Chase Bank has reportedly sent out letters to hundreds of porn stars notifying them that their accounts would be closed on May 11. Teagan Presley confirmed to XBIZ that her personal account was one of the ones shut down.

“I got a letter and it was like please cancel all transactions, please fix your automatic pay account and make sure everything’s taken care of by May 11,” Presley told XBIZ. “I called them and they told me that because I am, I guess, public and am recognizable in the adult business, they’re closing my account. Even though I don’t use my account, it’s my personal account that I’ve had since I was 18, when it was Washington Mutual before Chase bought them out.”
In other words, Chase Bank is slutshaming adult performers and closing their personal accounts, whether those accounts are associated with the adult businesses in question or not. It's apparently something of a morality play. That may find some support with the more conservative and/or religious factions in America, but I'd say it's an interesting move by the same bank that has, among other transgressions: financed the Nazis, engaged in fictitious trades, wrongfully foreclosed on active US soldiers, financed other Nazis, bankrupted American towns through changes in their debt-rate programs, violated the Sherman Act, refused to return funds to Jewish families that were victims of those same Nazis they financed, lied to people trying to finance automobiles, and financed the damned Nazis. To invoke a morality clause with all of that on one's resume would be a bit like having Donald Sterling fire an employee for being racist.

Unfortunately, because the banking industry appears to have rules all its own, it's unclear whether anything can be done about this kind of blatant discriminatory policy.
Adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi told XBIZ that Chase and other banks have “notoriously closed adult accounts or people in the industry’s accounts, but nothing like this.”

Whether legal recourse for those whose accounts were nixed is plausible — and, if so, which path is optimal — remains unclear, given that the situation is novel and that banks generally have the prerogative to do business with who they choose (yes, that often means flagrant discrimination).
And, yes, private businesses can choose with whom they do business, but I would suggest that if Chase wants to apply morality to their business, we should as well. That would mean they need to be paying far greater repercussions for their transgressions than the wrist-slapping they've experienced thus far.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 7:51am

    Times are changing

    "And, yes, private businesses can choose with whom they do business, but I would suggest that if Chase wants to apply morality to their business, we should as well."

    I am not sure that is true anymore. The recent story of the bakery that did not want to make the wedding cake for the gay couple says that you cannot make that choice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 7:57am

      Re: Times are changing

      In that case, the bakery violated non-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a cake for gay customers.

      The bakery opened itself to the public. It had to play by the same rules (i.e. follow the same laws) as all other public accomodations. It did not and got smacked down for its discrimination as a result.

      There exists no law that prohibits a business from discriminating against customers on the basis of said customers' choice of career.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GeneralEmergency (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:01am

        Re: Re: Times are changing

        .


        So if I were a Gay porn star, Chase would not have been able to close my banking account?

        Do have have any clue how absurd this "sexuality based discrimination" argument sounds to rational ears?

        .

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:11am

          Re: Re: Re: Times are changing

          Chase couldn't legally close your account because of your sexual orientation (so long as you lived in a state with proper non-discrimination laws).

          Chase could legally close your account because you did porn and it doesn't want to associate with porn stars. Whether you starred in straight or gay porn doesn’t much matter.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:01am

        Re: Re: Times are changing

        "There exists no law that prohibits a business from discriminating against customers on the basis of said customers' choice of career."

        Only until a judge says otherwise.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous, 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Times are changing

          That's the problem with the American people. They let judges, courts, and government determine their lives and choices. "Well, the court said...and we can't go against that". Bull. They can, but they're just too yellow.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 9:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Times are changing

            "They let judges, courts, and government determine their lives and choices."

            Yeah, some do, but a large (and increasing) number of people don't at all.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:28pm

        Re: Re: Times are changing

        What about "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          S. T. Stone, 1 May 2014 @ 2:03am

          Re: Re: Re: Times are changing

          Public accomodations must all play by the same rules in regards to non-discrimination laws.

          If you open a hotel in an area where laws prevent you from discriminating against gay people, you must either allow gay people to rent rooms or prepare to pay fines for flaunting the law.

          And besides, civil rights laws such as non-discrimination ordinainces don't exist for minorities. They exist to remind the majority that minorities count as people and deserve all the same protections of law.

          A business owner could refuse service to anyone, sure. But making a pattern out of refusing specific groups of people won't help when it comes to legal matters. Neither will admitting to discrimination under the guise of ‘freedom of religion’. When your doors open to the public, you either serve the whole public or you face the consequences.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Gay Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:29am

      Re: Times are changing

      Not really the same thing.. being gay (or straight) is not the same as being a porn star: one's an identity and the other is an occupation.

      Turning away business based solely on one's identity (man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, and inexplicably/weirdly, religious affiliation) is increasingly illegal. Turning away business based on one's occupation or business (e.g. Western Union not accepting business from adult industry, this) remains legal (and entirely dumb).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:54am

      Re: Times are changing

      Perhaps Chase should keep a closer eye on its executives then. After all, if it wants to hold itself up as a moral paragon (HA!, then it must abide by its own policies.

      Oh, wait...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:01am

    Time for an SOS campaign.
    Support Our Sluts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 5:42am

      Re:

      SOSOBS - Support our sons of bitches.

      Seriously, what a bunch of hypocrites. I'm glad I don't bank with them. If we spread the word and encourage everyone else to move their accounts, perhaps they'll change their censorious ways.

      To be honest, I'm down with people choosing who they will or won't serve*, but these are lying, conniving, Nazi-lovin', hypocritical douchebag people and they need to be called on it.


      *Where there's enough competition so it's their loss. "Freedom" to me means the freedom to be a jerk — but not to be allowed to get away with it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:06am

    "So if I were a Gay porn star, Chase would not have been able to close my banking account?"

    No, they could still close the account due to you being a porn star, just not for being gay.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:12am

    Credit Unions?

    The less people use the standard banking system and move to credit unions, the better. These mega rich for profit banks have got to go.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jay (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:57am

      Re: Credit Unions?

      Still need to stop the government from supporting the failed bank system, but yes, a mass exodus to credit unions would be a great start.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:40am

      Re: Credit Unions?

      The less people use the standard banking system and move to Bitcoin, the better. These mega rich for profit banks have got to go.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:14am

    Stretching it much?

    That may find some support with the more conservative and/or religious factions in America

    Love how to try to link Christians to this move and then name all sorts of things the bank has done that is not Christian in the least. Seems like you have taken a page right out of the left wing playbook. Fortunately the whole name calling by the left is starting to lose its impact. Seems if you cry wolf enough, people start ignoring you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:23am

      Re: Stretching it much?

      Er, I meant conservative in terms of moral values, not politics. Swing and a miss....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:26am

        Re: Re: Stretching it much?

        Yes, I know that, you bash conservatives and Christians every chance you get. Notice I didn't even mention conservatives in my statement? Almost feel bad for you that you allow something you don't even believe in to stick in your craw so much. But that is how it goes for bigots.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Some antimalwareguy, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:31am

          Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

          You don't need to be a Christian to be conservative hack or have you been living under a rock for the last decade?

          Deflect much?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:39am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

            No deflection here, he mentioned conservatives and religious people and based on his past writings we know he means Christians.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              Psst. Other religions can have conservative leanings, and Christians can have liberal leanings.

              You would do well to strengthen your arguments before you make them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:42am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                Sorry your reading comprehension is lacking, but notice I said that his swipe at "conservatives and religious people" is a thinly veiled reference to Christians as can be surmised by his frequent comments about them in his articles and comments to his articles.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                  ‘Conservatives and religious people’ exist as two separate groups. One can exist without the other. That doesn’t make his comment on those two groups (one with an actual basis in reality, considering how often members of both groups tend to demonize pornography) bigoted. It merely points out the reality that members of those groups might now respect Chase for de-linking itself from porn (in a roundabout way).

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:50am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                    Yes, so they will suddenly admire Chase and move their accounts there while ignoring all the other things Chase has done and/or is doing? You and Tim are trying to make a link that doesn't exist due to your own bigoted views.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:53am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                      Yes, so they will suddenly admire Chase and move their accounts there while ignoring all the other things Chase has done and/or is doing?

                      Such a thing happening lies within the realm of possibility. Never underestimate people and their ability to rationalize.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:04am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                      Let me see if I understand you...Tim is bigoted because Chase bank is doing something that would appear to appeal to conservatives/Christians (who typically would side against anything porn-related)?

                      I'd imagine the same rationalization that allows them to believe a magical man lives in the sky allows for that conclusion.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:19am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                        "I'd imagine the same rationalization that allows them to believe a magical man lives in the sky allows for that conclusion."

                        "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clark

                        Do tell, where is that line drawn?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:34am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                          The line is drawn when someone posts a quote that does NOTHING to detract from my statement, yet thinks it does.

                          If I need further explaining: a quote from Arthur Clark doesn't change the fact that Christians basically believe in a magical man in the sky.

                          If you don't like the analogy, then feel free to change your story.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:01am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                            Wow, way to completely and utterly miss the point. I would explain it, but you obviously have no intellect capable of encompassing it.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:43pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                              Ummm, I'm an atheist...if you think some quote is going to make me rethink my lack of beliefs, then I think it's YOU that have missed the point.

                              But again, feel free to dispute anything I said about believing in a magical man in the sky...funny how you mention lack of intellect while promoting a belief that has ZERO foundation in science.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:19pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                                "Ummm, I'm an atheist...if you think some quote is going to make me rethink my lack of beliefs, then I think it's YOU that have missed the point.

                                But again, feel free to dispute anything I said about believing in a magical man in the sky...funny how you mention lack of intellect while promoting a belief that has ZERO foundation in science."

                                I'm not doing any such thing. I'm asking a valid question. Where is the line between "super advanced tech" and "magical man in the sky?" But you go right on ahead with your foaming anti-god screed, missing the point entirely, as you seem to have your agenda fixed in attacking anything that might even be slightly related to religion at the expense of any reason, arguments, or conversation.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 6:21am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                                  Where is the line between "super advanced tech" and "magical man in the sky?"

                                  The ability to PROVE what you're seeing is real.

                                  Protip: Don't discuss religion AND use the words "reason" "arguments" or "conversation" - religion allows for NONE of these.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    James Jensen (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 10:18am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                                    "Protip: Don't discuss religion AND use the words "reason" "arguments" or "conversation" - religion allows for NONE of these."

                                    This would come as quite a surprise to Thomas Aquinas. You may have heard of him: he wrote some fairly lengthy books about religion that were full of arguments and reasoning.

                                    Protip: Don't tell people discussing a topic what they can and can't say about it when you don't know what you're talking about.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 5:54am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                                      Wow...another "thinker" who fell for the "if I have someone to quote, it must make my argument sound.."

                                      Aquinas, like many Christian "philosophers" STARTS with God, and bases any further thoughts on that premise. That's not an argument, has no basis in reason, and steers the conversation based on a faulty premise.

                                      Bertrand Russell: Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.

                                      Seems like you were in such a hurry to quote him, that you fell for his argument.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:28am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                          That contrast and question makes no sense whatsoever on two counts. First, there is no evidence of any kind of magic (or sufficiently advanced technology) being in play in the first place. So the contrast is really comparing two things that only exist in people's imaginations.

                          Second, the implication you're making with that contrast is that God is not, in fact, magical and is just a being who is using incredibly advanced technology. In which case he's not actually a god at all.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:53am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                      Victim much?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Baron von Robber, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:14am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                  I have no problem pointing out that most conservative Christians are notorious hypocrites.

                  As a disputed quote that I like, "I like Christ, I don't like Christians. So many Christians are so unlike Christ" - Gandhi

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              So you're attacking him based on your mind-reading skills rather than what he actually said. Good to know.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:32am

          Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

          "Yes, I know that, you bash conservatives and Christians every chance you get."

          Well, I have a lot of chances, since I'm married to a wonderful Catholic woman, who doesn't seem to think that's true....

          "Notice I didn't even mention conservatives in my statement?"

          Um, you said I was leftwing, indicating I was attacking the right wing. But, ooooooh, you so got me? Mmmm, no....

          "Almost feel bad for you that you allow something you don't even believe in to stick in your craw so much."

          Interesting. Since you seem to know, please tell me exactly what it is that I believe?

          "But that is how it goes for bigots."

          What have I said that's bigoted?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

            Its your pattern of attack on Christians that indicates you are a bigot. I have been reading this blog for several years and used to really enjoy it. In fact, I have come about 180 degrees since reading here and have greatly revised my views of patent and copyright law. But constantly reading articles, most especially yours, that take swipes at Christians and linking them to things where no links exist is tiring and it shows your true colors.

            Please, by all means, continue but you do realize you are no better than the people you claim to be against and for the very same reasons why you claim to be against them. You are only a hypocrite.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              Yes, because conservatives and religious groups (Christian or otherwise) have never once decried pornography or its ‘supporters’.

              Not once.

              Ever.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:45am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                Sure they have, but there was nothing in this article to indicate they have done that here. So linking them to this in some made up way is just his bigoted attack on them.

                By the way, what would you say about your daughter saying she wants to be a porn start or move to Nevada and become a legal prostitute? It is all well and good to talk a big game, but let your daughter attempt this and that conversation will go completely differently. Careful, your hypocrisy is showing.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:48am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                  Ah, the old ‘what would you say in this situation’ trick. The last gasp of a dying argument.

                  You felt offended at a tiny implication that conservatives and religious groups like companies that don't link themselves to porn. You blew a single comment way out of proportion. You would probably do well to examine your own biases and your own hypocrisy.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:52am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                    Ah, not answering the question, the last gasp of a lost argument. Decry a group for your dislike of their stance against these things while disproving of your loved ones participating in these things. Hypocrisy proven.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:56am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                      Decry a group for your dislike of their stance against these things while disproving of your loved ones participating in these things.

                      I don’t decry conservatives or religious groups for disliking porn. Let ’em. Their position doesn’t matter to me unless they try to criminalize porn.

                      And I didn’t say if I’d approve of my loved ones participating in porn because I don’t need to say if I would. That has nothing to do with the fact that a not-zero number of conservatives and members of religious groups often disapprove of porn.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:00am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                        And I didn’t say if I’d approve of my loved ones participating in porn because I don’t need to say if I would.

                        Of course you didn't answer the question because we already know the answer. So it makes you no different, except the hypocrisy part, than the religious groups.


                        That has nothing to do with the fact that a not-zero number of conservatives and members of religious groups often disapprove of porn.

                        And a non-zero number of liberals, non-religious, etc disapprove as well. But we didn't see them linked in here, did we? Which was my whole point which you seem to completely miss.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:07am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                          Of course you didn't answer the question because we already know the answer.

                          I don’t see how you know. You don’t know me on a personal level and I never said what I felt on the subject. Unless you have psychic powers, you can’t know based on my refusal to answer your hypothetical.

                          And a non-zero number of liberals, non-religious, etc disapprove as well. But we didn't see them linked in here, did we?

                          I hear about conservatives and religious groups decrying porn all the time (up to and including the desire to ban/criminalize all porn). I don't hear as much about liberals and agnostics/atheists doing the same. I know people in the latter situation exist, but those people don’t often try to enforce their disapproval of porn on others.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            dc, 16 May 2014 @ 5:49pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                            You should know by now that you can never win an argument against a conservative. They just keep throwing back more and more nonsensical arguments at you, ad infinitum. They have perfected the art of living within their own little anti-reality, fact-free force field that has no room whatsoever for any kind of rational discussion. I would just quit responding with rational responses before the poor guy has an aneurysm trying to come up with his next ridiculous point.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:15am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                      "Ah, not answering the question, the last gasp of a lost argument."

                      Shit, man, welcome to Techdirt. You just described nearly every AC and detractor here. They almost never have an actual *argument*, just complaints, ad homs, strawmen, bad analogies, and personal attacks.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                PRMan, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:44am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                Right. This article is like saying that a restaurant is adding fried chicken to the menu and Dark Helmet making a thinly-veiled comment to "for people of a more colorful persuasion" (ie blacks).

                He does it all the time (about conservative Christians) and I agree it's tiresome.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Niall (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 5:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                  He split them up, as they are separate but overlapping groups. If he'd wanted to directly malign them, I'm sure he'd have been very specific.

                  Also, beams in eyes and all that. When Religious or Conservative types stop judging others, they can complain about being judged themselves.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 5:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                  I'm basically conservative, PRMan. However, the Far Right has managed to take control of the conservative narrative and have positioned themselves and their views as actual conservatism, as opposed to radical right-wing authoritarianism, which it is.

                  Therefore, since I know that he's actually referring to Far Right authoritarians, not to moderates like me, I'm not offended. Unless you're of the "What War On Women?" persuasion (which I doubt), there's no reason for you to be offended.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Richard (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              Actually he doesn't attack Christians. He once called me his "favourite Christian on the internet".

              He attacks people who misunderstand what Christianity is about.

              In this case the relevant text is from St Matthew's Gospel Ch 5:

              "44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

              45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

              46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?"

              Clearly implying that regardless of how much you may disapprove of what someone does denying service to them is not an option.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:09am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

                Thanks, Richard, and you are indeed my favorite Christian on the internet, next to my wife.

                I'll further note that I didn't mention Christians at all in the article. My, the opportunistically offended sure are crazy....

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Baron von Robber, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              Not Christians, just twits like you who for some unknown reason, call yourself Christians (as if you actually represent them as a whole. Clue: you don't)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

            I hope you treat your wife with more respect than you do your religious readership. I can about bet you make snide comments to her constantly about her religious beliefs all the while feeling smug that you are somehow better than the religous nutjobs.. That kind of mental abuse is not funny, its not clever, its not witty, its cruel.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              Oh, yes, I abuse my wife all the time. Nice smear job, there, chief.

              And my wife is a talented, intelligent, moral and religious person. If I were making snide comments and "abusing" her mentally, she'd first kick my ass in an argument and then leave me, as she should in that scenario.

              Fortunately, not all of us that have a version of faith are as ignorant and morally repugnant as you. It would taint all people of faith if we were. We are not.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              And you need to treat the rest of humanity with some respect. Even Jesus had more compassion for prostitutes than you do.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Trails (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

              You've clearly been holding a lot of this in for quite a while. Do you need a hug?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            RD, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

            "But that is how it goes for bigots."

            What have I said that's bigoted?"

            You said something that disagreed with his worldview. That makes you a de facto bigot, especially on the internet. Just be glad he didn't Godwin you as well.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

            > Well, I have a lot of chances, since I'm married to a wonderful Catholic woman

            He said "bash" not... oh, forget it...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Trails (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:40pm

        Re: Re: Stretching it much?

        You fool, politics and morality are on the same, single dimension.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PeriSoft, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:54am

      Re: Stretching it much?

      Hey, they just said 'conservative / religious factions', not Christians. They could have been referring to anybody.

      It's not Techdirt's problem that you automatically associate intolerance and hypocritical self-righteousness with Christians. And that strikes me as quite a prejudiced and unfair view; if I were Christian I'd be quite offended!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pragmatic, 2 May 2014 @ 5:49am

      Re: Stretching it much?

      I'm pretty sensitive to anti-Christian sentiment. I get annoyed when I try to disown bad actors and have the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy thrown at me for it.

      I don't buy that because using it is an appeal to authority and a genetic fallacy. It also assumes a low bar for entry, but that's another issue. However, Tim didn't mention Christians. Not even once. So don't get your panties in a wad.

      There's a multiplicity of conservative-minded religious groups in America, many of which are not Christian and many of which are politically active. You might find yourself rubbing shoulders with them at an anti-porn rally, or something, one day.

      The funny thing is, it's likely that many of the most apparently hardcore people there will turn out to bet the most frequent users of some very nasty stuff. Seriously, don't get me started on right wing hypocrisy. As the Liberals say, "Don't like it, don't use it." I don't always agree with them but I think that's fair.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    avideogameplayer, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:14am

    For an organization that did business with Nazis, you'd think that they wouldn't care where their money was coming from...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:19am

    How could you turn away a customer so hot?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    zip, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:19am

    odd legal quirk

    Something I've never understood is how prostitution can be illegal -- unless it it being filmed. However, this "rule" seems to work both ways, depending on the situation. Filming a not-illegal act between consenting minors is a crime (as teenage "sexters" have surprisingly discovered) but with adult prostitutes, the exact opposite happens.

    But then maybe the difference between what's legal and what's illegal depends, as usual, on who is throwing money at politicians, judges, and lawyers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:24am

      Re: odd legal quirk

      Something I've never understood is how prostitution can be illegal -- unless it it being filmed.

      Doesn’t prostitution have only one ‘paid’ party (the prostitute), whereas porn producers pay all participants?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:36am

      Re: odd legal quirk

      From what I've heard, supposedly paying people to have sex in porn videos is legal as long as the person paying isn't one of the people having sex. Otherwise it's suddenly prostitution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:25am

        Re: Re: odd legal quirk

        ...and if they are jerking-off....Prostitution again?

        Don't forget, one in the hand is worth two in the bush!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        zip, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:49am

        Re: Re: odd legal quirk

        "From what I've heard, supposedly paying people to have sex in porn videos is legal as long as the person paying isn't one of the people having sex. Otherwise it's suddenly prostitution."

        Jenna Jameson got away with it. She owned the production company, signed the paychecks, as well as fornicated with the people she paid in a quid-pro-quo arrangement. That would seem to fit the very definition of "prostitution" -- unless maybe women can't legally be charged as "johns"?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:26am

    How is it shaming?

    Wouldn't shaming require this to be done in public?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Someantimalwareguy, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:29am

    erm...screw chase...

    ...and take your business elsewhere. I am certain there is another bank out there who would be more than happy to...ah...service your needs at a profit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christenson, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:31am

    Motivation -- Where is Chase going next? China?

    Look, you've got a bunch of amoral whatevers running the bank...which *ought* to be declared a place of public accomodation...calling morality of a rather peculiar form.

    Remind me to keep my sex life and toys completely separate from my bank!

    So what might they achieve by this? Are there really a bunch of Christian wingnuts that are suddenly going to do business with them? Quick, someone show me I'm wrong! But China *IS* busy having a porn crackdown...so this looks awful good to the chinese...or the saudis...or a big republican, like the next president of the US? who is it being buttered up for the big kill???

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Buster (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:43am

    Husband orgies and un-well known "stars"

    My first thought was Chase is trying to come off as a squeaky clean family oriented bank.

    Then I thought "Who's really out there researching bank account information and says 'oh no porn stars use this bank, my husband might walk in there and end up in an orgy.'" I mean, REALLY??

    My final thought was "I guess the girls in porns who STILL have their Chase accounts and DIDN'T obtain these letters are realizing how unknown they actually are"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:57am

      Re: Husband orgies and un-well known "stars"

      oh no porn stars use this bank, my husband might walk in there and end up in an orgy

      You, sir, have just come up with a plot idea for a new film.

      I would suggest "Chaste" as the name of the bank.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:52am

    I haven't seen any news of porn producers having their accounts shut down yet. I'm assuming that is because they actually have some money in theirs.

    My plan to take the high morality road would not be to add another hardship to the people most likely to have been exploited by the porn industry.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:18am

    How do they know?

    How on earth does Chase know whether or not someone is an adult performer? I assume performers would not be opening accounts under their stage name. Is there some division of Chase where the employees watch massive amounts of porn trying to recognize their customers, and if so, can I get a job there?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Un (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:36pm

      Re: How do they know?

      All three porn stars stupid enough to go into business using their real name deserve to be abruptly kicked from the ethical pinnacle that is JPMorgan Chase's branch of the International Money Fuckery.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:20am

    Hah, if it happens here it'll be a judicial shitstorm. Prejudice is a no-go from the start for the law. The best they could try is to deny serving those customers based on something wrong they did to the institution (ie: not paying their debt on time and things like that) but for working in the porn industry? Hell no, not a valid excuse for a public place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:02am

      Re:

      "Prejudice is a no-go from the start for the law."

      That's not actually true. Certain, specifically listed types of prejudice is no-go (race, religion, gender, etc.) but anything that's not in the list is perfectly legal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        BeeAitch (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 4:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Certain, specifically listed types of prejudice is no-go (race, religion, gender, etc.) but anything that's not in the list is perfectly legal.


        You are correct when speaking of the USA. I believe Ninja is not from the US (Brazil, maybe?).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:45am

    Did you just compare adult industry employees to Nazis?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:08am

      Re:

      Did you just compare adult industry employees to Nazis?
      Yes, but not in a bad way. Article poster says the bank served Nazis, but refuses to serve porn stars. The obvious implication is that the bank thinks porn stars are worse than Nazis, and the article poster disagrees. By the same token, I could say that construction workers are not worse than Nazis. Neither are accountants, or food service workers, or any of a huge number of professions that people legally conduct on a regular basis. Yet the bank has taken the position that it will decide, based on criteria that it is legally permitted (obligatory http://xkcd.com/1357/ - read the title text) to discriminate on, that it will decline service to these people. That's legal, but it's not good business. Worse, it sets a precedent for their account managers to close accounts based on criteria other than what is best for the business. Today they refuse to maintain accounts for people who work in porn. Maybe tomorrow they decide to refuse accounts to people who regularly buy pornographic movies/videos, or who make purchases at known sex toy retailers. Or maybe they decide to get involved in politics and refuse accounts to people who support causes that the account managers oppose. Even if you like all these ideas, do you also like the idea that your account gets flagged for closure because it made a transaction that the bank incorrectly decided matched one of the new "evil" transaction types? Perhaps you had a transaction with a group whose name is too similar to a blacklisted entity, even though the actual vendor is one the bank likes?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 6:15pm

      Re:

      No, he compared the treatment of adult industry employees by a bank to the treatment of Nazis by the same bank. Reading comprehension is your friend.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    HegemonicDistortion (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:16am

    Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

    This is thought to be part of DOJ and other agencies' Operation Choke Point.

    Here are a couple of articles about it:
    “Operation Choke Point” harmful to flow of commerce
    DOJ's 'Operation Choke Point' May Be Root of Porn Star Bank Account Closings

    To see the list of may be a "high risk" account, see this page from the FDIC (scroll down about halfway). It includes many legal but "socially undesirable" operations, as:
    Ammunition Sales
    Coin Dealers
    Dating Services
    Drug Paraphernalia
    Get Rich Products
    Money Transfer Networks
    PayDay Loans
    Pornography
    Racist Materials
    Telemarketing
    Tobacco Sales

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:20am

      Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

      Coin dealers? Dating services? What the hell?

      Even telemarketers seems out of place on that list, as much as I hate them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        HegemonicDistortion (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:44am

        Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

        Exactly. Also "racist materials" and "pornography" are both "speech" protected by the First Amendment (regardless of how abhorrent the former may be).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:38am

        Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

        I hate to defend the government here, but in the larger context of the linked page, those entries make a perverse sort of sense. Most dating services will not involve you visiting a specific store to fill in the application and pay for membership, but would be done online or possibly over the phone. Coin dealers might have a store presence, but again could operate without any face-to-face interaction. In the context of businesses which conduct their business remotely and offer a product that could be easily misrepresented, dating services (maybe it only offers a very limited number of first dates per month, or misleads about how many potential contacts are within reasonable travel distance) and coin dealers could legitimately be included there. I wouldn't knowingly sign up for a dating service that had almost all its members located hundreds of miles from where I normally go. Meeting those members would be too inconvenient.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 12:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

          But what is it about those businesses that causes them to be singled out? Lots of online-only businesses exist that aren't in that list, so it's not a matter of whether or not there's a physical store. The whole thing reeks.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            HegemonicDistortion (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

            And now I can't open up an account for my new online store, PMFUK.com (that's Precious Moments Figurines and Unicorn Kisses you filthy-minded bastard!).

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:16pm

      Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

      "To see the list of may be a "high risk" account, see this page from the FDIC (scroll down about halfway). It includes many legal but "socially undesirable" operations, as:
      Ammunition Sales
      Coin Dealers
      Dating Services
      Drug Paraphernalia
      Get Rich Products
      Money Transfer Networks
      PayDay Loans
      Pornography
      Racist Materials
      Telemarketing
      Tobacco Sales"

      Wait! How about my bribes taking Congressman?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anthem1 (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:36am

    Original story on Reason.com

    There is a story on Reason that implicates government pressure to the banks as a impetus for this action.

    link here: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/QkJkGVaPUCg/doj-operation-chokepoint-and-porn-sta rs

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:09am

    So legal = moral?

    The implication in this action is that Chase will discriminate as it pleases, so long as doing so is legal.

    Much like Abercrombie & Fitch not producing larger size because it only wants skinny people wearing their clothes.

    Chase believes it is acceptable for it to discriminate if it doesn't like your career.

    What's to stop them from discriminating against unattractive people?
    ...or jobless people?
    ...or crazy people?
    ...or gun-owners?
    ...or people recovering from drug problems?
    ...or people with poor driving records?
    ...or gamers?
    ...or goths?
    ...or furries?
    ...or bronies?
    ...or people who are opinionated on the internet?

    There are countless fringe groups, minorities and countercultures that are not popular with the mainstream but are not specifically protected by our anti-discrimination laws. Just because it is legal to refuse them business doesn't mean it is moral or ethical.

    Seems there's a lot of confusing those sets, what is legal and what is right.

    As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States
    This post does not contain an encrypted secret message.
    Wednesday, April 30, 2014
    pea indian hostpital padlock entrance fever crisps cockroach

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:27am

      Re: So legal = moral?

      unattractive people?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      dc, 16 May 2014 @ 5:58pm

      Re: So legal = moral?

      Ah... there we go. Now we have a post that points out something that will drive the people on one side of this argument nuts. So, let's say a big bank, whose pres and upper management just happen to be in favor of strict control laws (never mind the fact that there probably doesn't and would never exist such a bank, it's called an a-na-lo-gy people), decide to close the accounts of anyone who writes a check to a gun dealer to buy an assault rifle? Or more than a certain amount of ammo at a time? Ohhhhhhhh... There we go. NOW the same peeps who are defending the bank's doing this to adult performers, would be out in the streets demanding that bank president's head. mmm-hmmm.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 1:50pm

    Cash

    For all the talk about how cash is going away and online payments systems are much more convenient, this shows exactly why cash will never be gone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 2:19pm

    Chase teaching morals? Wow.

    Is doing any other then missionary position is also disqualifying?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NoahVail (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:11pm

    Chase is massive, corrupt institution.
    Anyone with an ounce of ethical backbone is already avoiding them.

    It's the stripper's own fault for not moving her accounts to a smaller bank years ago.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2014 @ 3:15pm

    I have to say I don't really have a problem with this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 30 Apr 2014 @ 4:21pm

    Wonder?

    I wonder if that is also, IF' you OWN them money..
    OR is there a CLAUSE to cover them for refusing services.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rita Real, 1 May 2014 @ 4:13am

    Let's See Chase's Real Colors

    Tonight the execs at Chase can go to Comcast and watch "Teen Moms Love 12 Inches" or any of a few dozen cultural flicks. Lets see if they send a letter to Comcast saying your account is closed. One must ask what is worse "Earning a few bucks acting in these films" or "Pushing it over the internet to millions of viewers"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 4:58am

    Huh, I always thought porn stars used sperm banks...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dan G Difino, 1 May 2014 @ 5:56am

    666 Banking Morality

    Some banks just have too much money apparently. Do those who hold the big stock in their hands want this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ta, 1 May 2014 @ 9:25am

    50 billion in fines is not exactly a wrist slap.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2014 @ 9:38am

    small businesses and big industry spurt out their wares like (insert grossest applicable analogy here)


    ...performers in swap.avi?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymoose Custard (profile), 1 May 2014 @ 11:01am

    I'm glad I closed my Chase account

    I'm actually happier at my credit union anyway.

    Even if Chase weren't a hypocritical, megalomaniacal, criminal organization, they're still an awful bank.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Another AC, 2 May 2014 @ 6:46am

    2600+ Uses of 'Slutshames' on TechDirt?!?!

    Awesome!

    No wait, boooo... the sites' search indexer is indexing every page where this story appeared at least once under Essential Reading-> Hot Topics.

    So 2600+ hits... of just this one article :S You should get your intern to fix that Mike, would make it much easier to find stuff on your site :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.