I was challenging your assertion they were 'preserving' the work, which was your argument as why it was okay. They are not. They took a picture, which is recording its existence, not preservation. You phrased it like it was a statue being removed to a museum. It is not.
Now you're arguing it okay to destroy it because you're not a fan of the work itself. That's a different argument, and taste being the measure of artistic worth for preservation is a slippery slope, imo.
Note I don't object to them removing the mural, but I do bemoan the destruction of the artwork, like I do the destruction of any artwork.