Unsurprisingly, I 100% disagree with those three tweets of yours, and think the exact opposite
2
1) you don’t know DHH’s motivation and I see no reasons for your assumptions 2) it doesn’t have to be intentional to be discriminatory, that’s a key part of the issue 3) Apple’s name is on the card, and it’s specifically supposed to be a new kind of card because of that
You don’t, and you don’t have to. The lender should be able to explain why the (reasonable) suspicion is unjustified

Nov 13, 2019 · 2:57 PM UTC