By that logic, the state can never be to blamed when making decisions that affect businesses. This wasn't an unintended consequence--every time a similar law has passed Amazon has acted identically on the exact day that it begins.
I do think Amazon's action was predictable, but it's still Amazon's action. I'm also not quite sure it was mandated by the decision; I suspect Amazon could still turn a profit even by retaining its CT affiliate program, but with the current landscape (% of states that do versus don't have such laws) it was a better business decision to pull out. Amazon is also probably looking at it as a strategic move to put pressure on other states, rather than considering the CT business case in isolation.
Why should it be any different than a mail-order catalog?
Coordinating the payout of sales tax for every state and city in the US? Coding and compliance nightmare.
If the Connecticut legislature legalized slavery (in direct conflict with federal law), and businesses were disgusted at the idea and refused to continue to conduct business in Connecticut, would you still argue the same reasoning?
PS
"Connecticut Killed Affiliate Marketing with Amazon.com" seems clear to most of us.
I'm making two comments in the comment you're responding to:
1. The article headline is a bit misleading, and should've said something like: Amazon pulls out of CT due to a tax-law change. Even, Terrible CT Tax-Law Change Drives Amazon Out, or something. As it's written, I thought that CT had banned affiliate programs; in a rush to editorialize, the headline author sacrificed clarity about agency. Of course, maybe everyone reading is already following the saga, so I was the only briefly confused person, but nonetheless it seemed like an easy problem to avoid.
2. Amazon is probably pulling out in part due to, as you say, a feeling that this would set a negative precedent for their business, not solely due to the CT case taken in isolation.
Your slavery example seems off the mark; Amazon is not taking action due to moral opposition to CT's tax policy, but because it's bad for their business. They happily do business in states with all sorts of unethical laws without complaining about them, as long as those laws don't impact their profits.
Not sure why you got confused with the headline or this discussion.