Law gives us two fallacies for the price of one, "rebutting" a straw-man argument and employing the fallacy fallacy by drawing conclusions about moral objectivism from the failure of the "argument" for relativism.
I also find his use of quotation marks inappropriate: Scare quotes are one thing, but I think we can leave invented dialog to the writers of fiction.
If this is the level of argumentation that he's teaching his students, it's no wonder they might actually fall for the bullshit he presents as "moral relativism": They would lack the critical thinking skills to do anything more than pick an authority and mindlessly parrot his or her views.
Update: I'm being too hard on Professor Law here; his continuing comments are more gracious than I probably deserve. I'm in an irascible mood today. Apologies all around.