I don't think that's what he's saying so much as the law reflects the principle I outline and they likely admire: state should in general not compel individuals (or businesses) to do things they don't want to do.
The idea that the law is just a bunch of words and your job is to advocate for them to change if it improves your life in any way is not a great guiding principle.
>state should in general not compel individuals (or businesses) to do things they don't want to do.
This is a very easy thing to say as a member of majority groups, but American (and South African and European, and...) history has shown that this attitude leads to some of the most grotesque outcomes in history.
And where does it end? Should subsidies and variable tax rates be illegal (hope you're not a member of a church or a supporter of the arts!)? Those are control mechanisms the government uses to influence behaviors.
Should federal employment be illegal? I don't think most Soldiers would risk their lives if not for the paycheck/benefits.
But treating the law as ironclad and immutable to the detriment of practical outcomes is just as bad. Therein lies the tension of civilization that must be kept in balance.
The idea that the law is just a bunch of words and your job is to advocate for them to change if it improves your life in any way is not a great guiding principle.