I actually think that even that analogy favors the restraint argued by the original comment. The civil rights movement was highly strategic in their choice of when and where to violate the law. The most successful leaders of those organizations would never have gambled the existence of the orgs on a purposeful violation of a law merely because it was unjust.

But really that's besides the point. If someone wants to argue the IA should gamble the entire organization on this issue, they should explain why rather than pretending its obvious and "right there in the article".