you misinterpret my comment.

i am using that as support for my claim that this extralegal proscription of access to financial services would likely also not survive the courts.

my position on this is simple. if the state claims there's something illegal then they should charge him/them, if not then pressuring private parties to stop exercising their freedom of assembly and association obviously goes against the spirit of civil rights and the rule of law.

(and I know the problem is convoluted, hard and obviously a realpolitik minefield, but ... again, obviously whatever the last 20 years of elected governments were/are doing did not solve the problems.)