In our hypothetical, we have been accepting that discrimination in the provision of a public service is illegal. Otherwise, there's nothing in the hypothetical to discuss. If, for example, Mojo were a vet who refused to treat cats, there's no issue. There is only an issue here if we accept that what he wants to do is illegal.
Whether the law is right, of course, is another question. But the answer to an unjust law, as we have known since the days of the Crito and had reaffirmed most recently by Martin Luther King, is to seek their revision, but while they exist either to obey them, or to openly disobey them AND OPENLY ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. Those who accept the protection of the laws they like must also accept the restrictions of the laws they don't.
Mojo wants not to seek a change in the law, but to disobey the law and suffer no consequence. That is an option I am not willing to offer him, because once that option becomes acceptable the rule of law is at an end. I am, frankly, surprised to find you arguing against that propositon, even implicitly. |
