Well, you know I can't stay out of this. I don't agree with what you are saying for a couple reasons. First, it is based on the premise that there is something "wrong" with breeding two snakes together that are very similar genetically and possibly only classified as different subspecies by *some* taxonomists. Again, taxonomy, imo, is as much about humans (ie, human opinion, human desires, in some cases human selfishness) than the animals. But regardless, it comes down to individuals' opinions. Heck, the example above shows that taxonomists can't even agree on the Family level of boas and pythons. So what you are saying kind of falls into the "preaching to the choir" category. You yourself just said people are free to take taxonomy as lightly or seriously as they want.
Secondly, what is a "pure strain?" Not trying to play semantics, I think this is an important issue. The different subspecies didn't evolve separately in isolated containers; quite the opposite. They branch out from a common ancestor. This is why I like to say evolution is analog, not digital. There is no distinct line between subspecies, which is exactly why taxonomy is so subjective. That's why I always laugh when I read about how different subspecies have intergrade zones where they interbreed. Of course they do! That's evolution. How do you know your BRB's are "pure?" How do you know they didn't come from an area where Peruvian types "interbreed" with Brazilian types? Conversely, if you have a BRB that has a few more/less mid-body scales than normal (ie, more like a "Peruvian,"
but is otherwise a beautiful rainbow boa, does it really matter? (Especially now that they are classified as one species.)
I know it wouldn't matter to me one bit. 
Lastly, I can see some merit in what you are saying with endangered species, but with non-endangered, captive snakes, there are plenty of sources one can go to to find "pure" animals anyway.
I guess we have to agree to disagree