But someone may go to the cinema twice a week, whereas the other person might play a poker game.
Why is the poker game player discriminated against? It seems very unfair, and it is a moral judgement on a lifestyle choice, similar to denying applications made by gays, or religious people, etc etc.
I acceopt that gamblers may present more of a risk than a non gambler, but this is hard to quantify, and the banks are likely over reacting. If they had acturarial calculations done, like insurance companies, showing a clear problem with gamblers then no problem, but that doesn't appear to be the case. It appears to be a moral judgement.
I also think that all banks should be allowed to refuse any and all loans, and give no reason. That would be my starting point, they are private companies after all. It might be that regulations exist to prevent banks from denying applications on certain grounds.. if so the regulations were presumabely introduced to help 'society' at large.. . if so these regulations should be adhered to.
So if banks can make up their own mind on every application then I'm fine with that. If however they have to follow certain rules, and gambling isn't mentioned in the rules then it's unfair to penalise gamblers, as opposed to cinema goers, or drinkers.