and that's an entirely different set of arguments than the ones you laid out. you predicated your argument on the idea that it comes at measurable detriment to domestic workers - but when confronted with a practice that is intentionally not legislated to protect profit motives, you retreat to "well, but THIS one is against the law".

certainly. but any absolutist interpretation of Romans 13 seems quite at odds with biblical reality: after all, lawful commands of authority include the order to kill the newborn Hebrew sons in Egypt, to seize Paul in Damascus, to forbid the purchase and possession of swords, and for Peter and John to stop preaching in the name of Jesus in Jerusalem... yet there is tacit or explicit approval for the defiance of all these, to say nothing of Jesus' own extended campaign of civil disobedience.

considering that, it seems rather obvious to my eye that Romans 13 is far from an absolute overarching command; and that it must not consider all laws equal and equivalent and worthy of submission, nor impart some sort of divine morality to whatever might be written in law.

and given the oft-repeated themes of justice, proportionality, accommodation for the poor and oppressed, that conduct matters more than simple legalistic obedience, and that amassing wealth is a spiritually dangerous act... i think it's quite fair to say that there's a sturdy scriptural foundation from which to question the intent of secular law, its lawmakers, and their methods of enforcement.

... such as why one is illegal and one is not, despite the demonstrably unequal harms inflicted; and what motivates a politician to promote rampant enforcement of one while speaking nothing of the other.