Occupy Santa Cruz - Bank of America refusing to close account

Found this little gem today. The mere fact that a bank can tell someone that they can not close an account with the company because that individual has expressed their distaste with the company and it's practices is a violation of market economics.
The bank manager tells the individual trying to close her account that: "You can't be a protester and a customer at the same time." If that is the case, then the bank is required to hand over any money and assets that it is currently holding for the individual.
Bank of America is taking the position that it is in their best interest to hold and utilize customer assets even after the customer has expressed that they do not wish to be a part of the bank anymore. Does this seem like a violation of business ethics to anyone else? Or is it just me...
As is usually the case with shady practices the bank manager refuses to provide an adequate reason for not allowing this person to close her account with the bank. Towards the end of the video they find out that if they come back later without signs, then they will be allowed to close their accounts. Since when has it been acceptable for a bank to tell one of their own customers that they are not allowed to close their account because of their personal involvement in ANY activity?!