As usual, Ray is making the intelligent move. (In addition to what I consider to be an ethical move)
1. The economic costs of staying closed for an indeterminate amount of time and complying with myriad unpredictable regulations will not only deter investors, creditors and business partners, but have also already put many gyms out of business. The smart move is to make efforts to show you can still be a viable business. The heightened risk must be seen as an uncontrollable environmental factor at this point.
2. Demographics: Is the type of person training in an SS franchise gym willing to tolerate unpredictable gym closures and nonsense rules? Are they the type of person who respects an organization for taking a stand? Are they less likely to be driven by fear? In addition, you have the added bonus of being able to stand apart from the thousands of commercial gyms that are too large and risk averse to even consider this course of action. If even a small amount of the traditional gym-going market notices and decides they agree with the SS corporate values, the franchise gyms come out way ahead in terms of potential customer base.
3. Marketing: One of the main challenges a startup franchise enterprise can have is getting the word out. It may not make sense for a regular individual to get arrested for civil disobedience, however even a small fine could generate a large amount of valuable publicity for a company that needs to promote brand awareness. It can be difficult to get time on the microphone. Although we hope it doesn't happen, an arrest or fine could actually fall heavily in the economic favor of Starting Strength.
This is all a calculated risk that had to be made. Sitting on the fence would not have helped. And, as Delgadillo said, they aren't real laws anyway.