[trevelyan]

I think your analogy is flawed in this case. Government-enforced monopolies have an implicit social responsibility to abide by social norms when conducting business. This is more akin to a subway refusing to carry a newspaper publisher because of something they published.

To the extent that a refusal of service violates social norms this creates a legitimate grievance in the absence of reasonable alternatives because of public policy.

[brass_cannon]

To me, the fact that Visa / MasterCard are in a heavily regulated (and to some extent, subsidized) industry is a separate issue. Perhaps the government should have less influence on these card associations, but the fact remains that they are still private entities.

Perhaps my analogy was not quite accurate, but I think your analogy goes too far on the other side. A subway is wholly owned by, and operated under, the budget of a government.

I understand, and sympathize with 12341sa's outrage, but his comment implies I have a right to purchase goods using a Visa or MasterCard.

[trevelyan]

I'm not arguing that you have the right to a credit card. But you should not be discriminated against on grounds that violate the social compact. Otherwise, your argument suggests it would be legitimate for Visa and Mastercard to refuse to process donations for specific political parties or politicians. Or for Paypal to close the accounts of people who vote.

I think most people would accept that there is a fundamental right to engage in peaceful trade. And just thinking of the issue practically, there are far more ways for someone denied access to the subway to get to their destination than there are ways for people to collect money remotely without access to the banking infrastructure and credit transfer services.