I'm torn. A lot of life is based on credit scores, and if I was denied a credit card I would be pissed. I don't have a job so I have no taxable income, but I do get federal income that can't be considered, yet it's still income. But at the same time credit isn't a right or a need, it's a want, so I guess they can do what they want with their policies.
You are currently dependent on your husband's income. If the husband is removed from the equation, how can they estimate your future income?
And if they can't estimate my future income, how can they extend me debt without my knowledge or consent just because my husband signed up for it?
My argument still stands here, though. They would be extending the debt to your husband, based on his income. You could be a joint user, yes. But the primary cardholder/applicant is your husband.
Or, in other words - I don't care about CA's laws, because I don't live there. I'm talking about the higher level Federal Law which is what Target is basing its credit extension policies on.