While I would normally agree that any individual or entity has the right to do business with whom they choose, I would have to object in any case where a government charter is required to practice. This would also apply to any utility with a virtual monopoly that is assigned a region by government.
The moment that you accept government support you obligate yourself to the general public and should not be allowed to choose your customers.

I tried Chase Bank. They don't meet my standards.

Banks are private institutions, and as such have the right to decide who their customers will be. But in my opinion, denying service based on political affiliation is business suicide. Does Chase really want to lose half or more of its clientele? I'll bet the people behind this stupidity will be walking the streets soon looking for work.

It’s hard to believe that Chase, or any vendor, would give up half of their clientele by being so stupid as to deny them service. However, slick Hilly did so in the political world, so it may be possible.....

"If conservatives are too complacent and lazy to address the challenges"
Conservatives aren't complacent or lazy.
There are only a handful of conservatives who represent the people in con-gress in either party.
The GOP is full of CINOs.

Bank of America is doing the same thing. I'm planning on switching my home equity LOC to another bank (or credit union) as soon as practical.

"Do we need to build our own banks, too?" from the article didn't have an answer. Perhaps we should and mirror what is happening on the liberal front, denying liberals. I'm still with Chase, but only due to a merger. The last payback I got from the previous bank was about $8000 a year in interest on my checking and savings accounts. Today I make so little that I don't even have to put it on my income tax filing. Why should anyone stay with them, today they pay nothing for using your money. Until then can anyone recommend a decent, and "fair", bank, or should I find an old coffee can?

I hope there's a lawsuit in there somewhere

I reserve the right to do business with whom I choose and respect that same right among others. If they want to be stupid and lose my business, that's up to them but I don't support more laws on the banking industry about who they can do business with. I would, however, support a law which allows me to sue them (for punitive damages) for cancelling a business contract for spurious reasons, i.e. those associated with otherwise legal conduct on my part - such as my political affiliation, race, color, religion, etc. And I would put the onus on the bank to prove that they cancelled the account for non-spurious reasons.

I pulled any investments I had with Chase, years ago. Aftter meeting with the investment banker, telling him I had a broker, he admitted they took money from the Fed. Reserve, and really did not need investors money! More recently, PatPal stinks after cheir cngeing to Chase. Half the time, an nvoice never sppears for you to pay it. So, now that they have become less than the go to pay method, they want to screw over conservatives.

I never liked chase. They keep giving me $300 credits for starting a bank account, and I just wont take them up on it. Probably ever

There are some industries of such size and power that should have something like 'common carrier' rules applied to them. This idea may not meet with wide approval in the Gulch. How about government sets rules for customer relationships, and accepting is voluntary? A business that accepts would recognize it is a good marketing strategy. Acceptance would be under a Deed - legally enforceable.
All government agencies would be subject to those rules - eg. police, post service, law courts, education, fire fighting, customs, ..

Some businesses, such as bakeries and religious colleges, would enhance their market position by publicly not accepting those rules. Property is used as the owner desires. I do not think this view can be applied to government agencies or to businesses like airlines or banks, at least those of the largest size where there is a monopoly. Monopolies do exist tho' not so often as thought and even then would rarely deserve government action to supervise.

How do they know what anyone's political affiliation is?

The bank has no right to demand voting registration.