"No, no," gasped the bank, as the hot night air pulsed with the sound of distant drums. "I didn't know you were that kind of man."

"Don't hand me that," snarled the porno king through clenched teeth. "After 14 years together, I've got my rights and you can't take them away."

A federal judge in New York Wednesday refused to stop Chemical Bank from closing the checking accounts of a Times Square "porno king," who argued that his First Amendment rights were being violated by the bank's action.

Peep show and porno purveyer Martin Hodas told the court that Chemical Bank had advised him in a letter that it would "terminate" his 16 individual and business checking accounts if he did not close them voluntarily.

The grounds given for the termination by the bank were disapproval of the nature of Hodas' businesses. In a complaint filed against the bank, Hodas described his multimillion-dollar empire as the dissemination of "First Amendment-protected adult materials" -- that is, books, magazines, novelties and peep-show films "concerning various aspects of sexual activities."

"Unfortunately, we must ask you to make other banking arrangements," the bank wrote Hodas Jan. 8 are not compatible."

Hodas, who has been described as having pioneered the peep-show business in the Times Square area, was given until Jan. 31 to remove his accounts, some of which dated back to 1967.

J. Jeffrey Weisenfeld, who represented Hodas, said he was given no reason for the timing of the bank's action except that a new manager had reviewed accounts and found Hodas unacceptable. Hodas, whose accounts total approximately $150,000, had been a good customer, maintaining adequate balances and not bouncing checks , according to testimony.

Hodas charged in his complaint that the "malicious actions" of the bank violated his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and association and asked that the court issue a preliminary injunction against closing the accounts.

U.S. District Court Judge Pierre N. Leval denied Hodas' motion, noting that Hodas had failed to prove significant hardship and that "by doing business with plaintiff, Chemical Bank may expose itself to the risk of attracting community disapproval on an inflammatory issue and may have a legitimate concern that it is aiding an illegal business."

Chemical, the nation's seventh-largest bank, declined to comment on the case, which still is pending.

"Hodas has been in the paper before and usually gets hate mail," said his attorney Weisenfeld. In this case, he said, Hodas' mail has been running heavily in his favor and against the bank.

Weisenfeld noted that the bank's action was largely symbolic but added that civil rights laws allow individuals to challenge affronts to their rights even when there is no economic damage.

"He just didn't like the idea," he said of Hodas.