Does the word “and” always mean a logical (boolean) operation?
Certainly not, a quick glance at the dictionary demonstrates that the use of and is not limited to a boolean operation:
conjunction
1.0 Used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly:
bread and butter
they can read and write
a hundred and fifty
1.1 Used to connect two clauses when the second refers to something that happens after the first:
he turned round and walked out
1.2 Used to connect two clauses, the second of which refers to something that results from the first:
there was a flash flood and by the next morning the town was under water
1.3 Connecting two identical comparatives, to emphasize a progressive change:
getting better and better
1.4 Connecting two identical words, implying great duration or great extent:
I cried and cried
1.5 Used to connect two identical words to indicate that things of the same name or class have different qualities:
all human conduct is determined or caused—but there are causes and causes
1.6 Used to connect two numbers to indicate that they are being added together:
six and four makes ten
1.7 archaic Used to connect two numbers, implying succession:
a line of men marching two and two
2.0 Used to introduce an additional comment or interjection:
if it came to a choice—and this was the worst thing—she would turn her back on her parents
2.1 Used to introduce a question in connection with what someone else has just said:
‘I found the letter in her bag.’ ‘And did you steam it open?’
2.2 Used to introduce a statement about a new topic:
and now to the dessert
3.0 informal Used after some verbs and before another verb to indicate intention, instead of ‘to’:
I would try and do what he said
ODO
And is a conjunction connecting two related units, and the connection is not necessarily boolean:
... for the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing the
trade in the products of Michigan, or ...
The larger context informs of the relationship between encouraging immigration and increasing the trade:
The boards of supervisors of the several counties may levy a special tax on the taxable property within their respective counties for the purpose of creating a fund; or appropriate out of the general fund an amount to be used for advertising agricultural or industrial advantages of the state or county or any part of the state, or for
collecting, preparing or maintaining an exhibition of the products and
industries of the county at any domestic or foreign exposition, for
the purpose of encouraging immigration and increasing the trade in the
products of Michigan, or advertising the state and any portion thereof
for tourists and resorters.
Recognizing the legislative source, and the productive analysis of parallelism, the exhibition mentioned in the larger context seems to have a three-fold purpose: immigration and trade or tourism. The conjunction and seems to be "boolean" in reference to the purpose--both are included together.
It is not necessarily "boolean" in reference to outcome. At some expositions, the the exhibit may effectively encourage immigration. At some expositions, the the exhibit may effectively increase the trade. At some expositions, the the exhibit may accomplish both.
Interestingly, the or presses the and toward a boolean interpretation in reference to the purpose. By contrast with the conjunction and, the conjunction or sets the advertising part of the there-fold purpose apart as an alternative to the pair: encouraging immigration and increasing the trade.
Still and would not necessarily have a strictly boolean function in reference to the outcomes. At any exposition, the the exhibit may fulfill any combination of the listed purposes--which were linguistically presented as a single three-fold purpose.
Conclusion:
The semantic complexity of purpose, rooted in the complexity of human reasoning and interaction, transcends a simple boolean arrangement. Unless they anticipate litigation, both the average writer and the average reader can manage this complexity without the need for precise boolean logic. Though this legislative language likely anticipated litigation, it remains a matter of subjective judgement to determine the "purpose" of an exhibit.
I fail to see why the situation with hyphenated compound adjectives is any different from that with simple adjectives. It is normal practice to put commas between multiple adjectives (with some variation in style regarding the last adjective if ‘and’ is included) — see e.g. Crystal. So a simplified model of your sentence would have commas as:
…a wild, long, slithering snake…
Whatever the virtues of your self-imposed rules, they work in the same way if you replace ‘wild’ by ‘free-roaming’, and ‘long’ by ‘ten-foot’.
…a free-roaming, ten-foot, slithering snake…
As justification for this point of view, all I can find at the moment is a SE EL&U question on a slightly different topic, in which the use of commas was not criticized:
I will be investigating control issues in ground-based, water-based, and air-based robots.
In conclusion, you do need commas.
Best Answer
It appears to mean the following
While the interpretation of complex and ambiguous laws keeps numerous lawyers busy and well paid, Courts tend to look to see if there is parallel construction to interpret what the legislature intended.
In this case, the start of the first main category is designated by for and the next is set off by , or for. The for in the purpose of phrase is not part of that series of main categories. If it were part of a series, either the second category would not have had an or and the purpose of clause would have begun with one, or all the phrases in the series would have begun with or.
SUPPLEMENT
It has been suggested that the portion I have listed as subparagraph b) should be its own bullet as a main category. [See @Dan's comment below for the rationale.]
There is some common sense logic to that, but I don't think so for two reasons. To be parallel, it would need or for, which it lacks. Also just to advertise the state ... for tourists ... seems broader than the product focused criteria of the other two main categories. (And now we are into legislative interpretation for which we need to charge lawyers' salaries.)