>He said he could not understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”

Perhaps he's entirely unaware of any history where "the law" was used to oppress. Perhaps he's also unaware that something being "the law" does not make it just. For instance, in Washington, where I live, just two years ago it was illegal to own marijuana. Now it's legal. Does this now mean that the moral status of owning and smoking marijuana has changed, or does it merely show that the law is inconstant and often at odds with justice? Much is taken for granted in his rhetorical question.