I purposely didn't put that in - I was trying to convey the righteous outrage that would be felt.

The point is you think about this up front.

The reason you would require the functioning facility to be closed is to make it clear to the business and all others there are consequences for this incompetence and lack of care.

May as well burn down whole building and start over as a consequence for these injustices. Why aren’t you proposing that?

Also, the example is absurd because urinals wouldn’t satisfy all restroom needs. Men don’t defecate in the urinal. It’s even in the name.

You are perhaps poring too much over the detail.

I've no idea how you get to burning the whole building down, my rationale for conveying the importance of respecting standards, legislation and plain human decency was pretty clear I think.

The rationale I see here is that 'disrespecting' standards means we should cut off the nose to spite the face.

Why didn't you decide the building should be burned down, rather than just closing the offending restrooms? Or if not burned, closed temporarily? Or, per your example, what is the difference if they leave the restroom open but specifically disable the urinals, letting people use the sinks to wash their hands?

Where exactly is the line that you draw on what should be sabotaged to rectify the injustice? Is it just do whatever the legislation says? Does following "legislation" always equate to "plain human decency" and does that rule apply 100% of the time in the past, present, and future?

Please, just consider what I actually said, these excessive scorched earth situations are kind of bizarre.

The reason you would require the functioning facility to be closed is to make it clear to the business and all others there are consequences for this incompetence and lack of care.

Sure, I still think the consequence qualifies as cutting the nose to spite the face.

Although I don't get why you think you're entitled to come up with a hypothetical scenario but balk at entertaining any questions clarifying it or related hypotheticals. But anyway, agree to disagree.

In contrast to opinions of employers or employees, laws are the result of the democratic process. The process itself might lead to imperfect results due to populist election campaigns, lobbying parties, and lawmakers funding the next golf party by making the actual legal text a bit complicated, but it's the closest approximation of general consensus we currently have.

That being said, once it's law you have one thing to do and two options:

- you have to follow the law

Besides that, you should embrace what your fellow humans might have thought when bringing in this legislation, enabling you to either:

- Help you understand and embrace it - Vote differently in the next election (or, sadly but truly bring in your net worth to lobby towards your opinion to greater effect)

Well I think my hypothetical was a parallel the OP might have more empathy with, rather than your extreme extrapolation.

To be clear though: I think directing the booths be rebuilt to standards was acceptable; burning the building down would be excessive.

The point is to compel compliance by outrage of the majority group.