One of the primary functions of the government is to provide consensus. There are flaws: dictatorships impose consensus, corruption skews consensus, not everyone participates. Doesn't matter. At the end of the day, almost all people on Earth recognize the rule of at least their own government. Therefore, it is easily the most universally recognized consensus.
And, in democratic nations, the laws often do follow society's agreed upon moral imperatives. This is why child abuse and animal abuse are illegal.
The sticky situations come in where there is not a strong consensus. In the US: Abortion, vaccines, climate change, gun control. There's an ebb and flow to it, but a lot of people will be generally unhappy no matter what does or doesn't happen.
Let's go back to my comment:
>If it was agreed upon then it would be illegal.
I think this is necessarily true. If society has a strong agreement that something is morally wrong, the laws almost certainly would follow, as they tend to.
I am not saying this is a perfectly accurate measure, and I'm also not saying the reverse is true. But I am absolutely saying that I believe one of the main reasons people go about imposing moral beliefs on others by threatening service providers and forming harassment mobs is because some group of people has a strong moral imperative that other people may not have or may actually disagree with.
I don't believe in absolute free speech, but I believe that people should be able to express themselves in ways that are legally protected. I also think it's okay for people to express their dislike of things, but I don't think it's OK to engage in coordinated harassment. Internet mobs are not the force I want policing the internet.
If you have a strong moral imperative against something that's legal, why do you think it's legal if everyone agrees with you?
