> Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?

The EO isn't out yet-- it might. Might not.

Right now the incentives are such that banks are likely to crap on anything they think the federal government may not like, because there are infinity penalties available for displeasing the government and nothing but losing a customer on the other side.

So anything that shifts the balance at all may have a fairly broad effect at improving access to banking.

What about customers that slide into unsavory activity, or customers who you think are doing illegal things, but don't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Are citizens not allowed to decide not to associate with someone?

I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.

The executive order is not expected to be specific to the “the president's friends and allies”, but just politically motivated bank actions in general. But I agree, legislation is preferable. And I wouldn’t support such an executive action if it were one sided.

Why would I feel conflicted? One is about cakes from a small business with lots of alternatives for customers to choose from. The other is about large banks which are few in number, have privileged access, immense power, and provide a public utility.