I suppose it is better to show up to a gun fight with strawmen? That way you can knock out the strawmen and declare your argumentative prowess?
The problem is, I'm not defending or even discussing the banks' actions.
Or are you also arguing that two wrongs make a right?
So anything that is legal is by definition moral? So there is nothing wrong with discriminating against someone based on race or religion (as posted above) simply because it is legal?
Yes. In a democracy the law reflects the collective morality of it population.
Finally, I get you to state your beliefs, thank you. I disagree, but you are certainly entitled to your beliefs as am I.
I would, however, like you to elaborate a bit. Based on your statement were the following things (which were all legal at one time or another) moral or right, at the time, but now immoral or wrong? (We can drop the term "moral" and simply use "right" and "wrong")
At one time it was impossible (legally) for a man to rape his wife.
Denying the vote to someone based on race or sex.
Killing someone based on religion/race/etc.
Requiring someone to practice a specific religion.
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
Abortion (reversed, so was it immoral or wrong when it was illegal, but moral or right now?)
Banning interracial marriages
The age of consent for sex is 16 in many states, but 17 or 18 in others, in some countries it is as low as 12. Is it moral or right to have sex with a 16 year old as long as your are in one of those states, but immoral or wrong if you happen to be in another? How about a 12 year old as long as you are in a country that permits it?
I'm curious how the simple act of making a law changes morality or right and wrong. Heck, simply crossing a national border or state line would change it. I think our difference is, you think it does, and I I don't..