When there is no absolutism in law, when there is room to connive and to make way for exceptions, anything can be permitted.
For example, St. Paul explicitly states or rather questions:
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the unrighteous for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?
Some may say that for serious injustice, Christians may sue, making a provision in the Law of God and in the Scriptures for legal action. However, this type of thinking leads only to permissiveness rather than strict adhering to the law and to principles. Why state principle if they are only to be encroached upon by qualifications and exceptions? Do not state the principle or rule in the first place at all.
This applies to the Constitution as well. Every single amendment in the Bill of Rights can be and has been violated by law ever since the 20th century which was the beginning of a new system of philosophical thinking that brought about the exploitation of qualifications and exceptions with regards to principles. As absolutism faded away, so did our adherence to rules, laws, and to the law of God.
Absolutism or conniving? Isn't that black or white? Shouldn't there be a shade of gray for a demon to fit in?
May it never be.