> But, effectively, you want to tell other people what to do with their money without taking on any financial risk for those policies.

For this kind of service (again leaning on a classification as 'public infrastructure') I suppose my answer is yes.

> Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

I'm suggesting that regulation prevents them from _disallowing_ access to payments services for things that are not explicitly illegal. In this case I don't see 'Telling X what to do' and 'Telling X that they're NOT allowed to refuse to provide service in these cases' as the same thing, even though they're both essentially 'Mandating that X operate in a certain way'. The difference here being that refusal of service, while still being a choice about how to run, is explicitly a blocking choice for others in certain situations, and not just a choice to, for example, create a new credit product for the market.

> Why does one segment of the public get to tell another segment of the public what to do with their money without putting any skin in the game?

Is this not also just Collective Shout themselves pressuring the payment processors into refusing transactions from a third party for content that they themselves deem inappropriate?

> The majority shareholders for Visa are retirement accounts and retail investors

Is Visa not refusing a legitimate transaction (non-fraudulent, no rollback or refund) going to hurt these investors when part of their investment income comes from usage fees? And if an investor that has concerns about _how_ their investment makes money is that not now a different issue?

Edit: Added last point about shareholders.