How is that different from questions asking how to cheat your ISP?  Those are also about circumventing the terms of use associated with the product or service.  

Why does differentiating a civil contract from criminal law make a difference?  It's intellectual property.  Apple made the investment to develop it, and they can apply any terms they want to its use.  If you choose to use it, that use is subject to whatever terms Apple wants unless or until a court rules that they don't have that right.  You don't buy and own the OS; it isn't yours to do whatever you want with.  You purchase a right to use it according to some terms.  If you don't like the terms, don't buy it.

There are legal concepts of fair use and of limitations on restrictions a "monopoly" might try to apply unilaterally in a EULA.  Those are arguments that can be used in court if a EULA is litigated.  The existence of the concepts doesn't mean that all EULAs are meaningless until a court rules that one is legitimate.  It's the opposite.   

Previous use of terms like "illegal" was unfortunate, because the issue isn't about whether Hackintosh is a criminal matter.  "Gray area" has also been misapplied.  There's no reason to get side-tracked in a discussion of legal nuances.  That fact that you can find places on the planet where the EULA isn't enforceable isn't relevant, either.

It isn't our job to know and enforce the TOS for every company and product.  But that doesn't mean that the site should actively promote anarchy and the flaunting of any TOS.  Where the TOS are well known, we should not knowingly promote, sanction, or facilitate cheating or piracy.  

By "well known", I don't mean there should be a threshold of "well-knownness" that determines whether or not we enforce a EULA.  If and when we are aware that a question seeks to violate a EULA or TOS, we don't facilitate that.  On little-known products or companies, stuff will slip through.  We get a large number of Hackintosh questions, enough to put the subject in a league of its own, the EULA is clear, we are well aware of it, and there is nothing wrong with covering that in a policy since it comes up so often.  

The underlying objective is not to enforce EULAs, or to be uniform and fair in which EULAs we enforce.  The objective is to not facilitate piracy or cheating on intellectual property rights when we are aware of it and it is easy for us to refrain from doing that.