It's an outrageous comparison because your comparing Uber to civil disobedience. There is actually difference.
Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law.
If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.
So if a restaurant served people of both races but gave them all a bill, you'd be similarly opposed? Or if blacks broke the law to draw attention to discrimination in employment or occupational licensing? After all, someone (a corporation in the restaurant case) is making money off it so it's just breaking the law.
Or if Catholics in Northern Ireland were protesting to stop discrimination against them in employment, same thing? (Springs to mind since I just visited Derry a few days ago.) Due to the involvement of money it's just breaking the law?
That's a new argument which I don't agree with, but I suppose the implications aren't quite as bad as those of Markoff's argument. You aren't condemning all civil rights activists, just the ones who fight for an equal right to make money.
Or perhaps you are just making a post-hoc rationalization for a less justifiable position.
Companies are incapable of civil disobedience. As soon as somebody is making money off of it, it's just breaking the law, regardless of whether or not you like said law.
If Uber wants to change the world, they can start lobbying, or start a grassroots movement or something. Just saying "screw you" to the existing regulations isn't ok.