PayPal has done the world a favour by banning them.
It matters very little how despicable the company is, monetary services must not hold opinions unless explicitly told one by a local government.
For example, I don't want my bank to provide services to organised crime because I both feel that would be morally wrong and I think it'd open the bank's staff to influences that aren't in the best interests of other customers.
Also, your argument isn't with PayPal; it's with the entire FS industry.
A better example might be highly religious community not wanting their bank to do business with companies focused on the gay and lesbian community.
This is a good example because: it is not illegal for a company to cater to the gay and lesbian community, it is not illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian people in many states, and there are communities that would dislike this sort of company.
Either way, I gave the example of organised crime not in an attempt for people to take it as a literal suggestion of equivalence but to argue against the idea that a financial institution has no place being choosey about its customers.
That sounds like a very interesting idea, but how about this one?
> "You must follow PayPal's terms and conditions or should expect to have your account terminated"
Because that's how every payment processor in existence works. Don't like it? Use bitcoin.
For one example, see American Express's Merchant Operating Guide
See section 10.2 Prohibited Merchants. There's a whole list of them. Here's a select few:
Multi-level Pyramid Sales, Prostitution, Payday Lenders, Timeshares, Gambling, Virtual Currency, Escort Services and Non-Licensed Massage Parlors, Mortgage Payments.
> The most interesting thing is that we’ve moved away from PayPal in the last two years and have only been receiving some minor payments and paying for a few online services.
We've stopped using PayPal for our SaaS business a few years ago.