Center Controller reported an air carrier experiencing lost communications violated FAR's when they continued to their destination instead of landing at the nearest suitable airport.

Narrative

Aircraft X departed DFW and was headed to ZZZ. Shortly after departing DFW they lost their all radios and their ability to transmit. They could receive transmissions and ident but not communicate with ATC. They began squawking 7600. They flew through part of ZFW; and then through all of ZAB without being able to radio communicate with ATC and with failed radios. They did not comply with the FARs part 91 or 121 for failed radios. Our supervisor called the company and the company advised us that they were in communication with the pilots via ACARS and were going to continue to their destination of ZZZ; and to use CPDLC if we needed to talk to them. Our Supervisor advised we were not CPDLC capable at ZAB yet. Company advised they were intentionally going to fly for HOURS while being NORDO through ZAB anyways and were not going to land as soon as practicable; as is required by 14 CFR 91.185. The 14 CFR 91.185 says pilots experiencing radio failure should land as soon as practicable; and it specifically says that it applies to aircraft in Class A airspace:'This procedure also applies when two-way radio failure occurs while operating in Class A airspace. The primary objective of this provision in 14CFR Section91.185 is to preclude extended IFR operation by these aircraft within the ATC system. Pilots should recognize that operation under these conditions may unnecessarily as well as adversely affect other users of the airspace; since ATC may be required to reroute or delay other users in order to protect the failure aircraft.' The pilots were not declaring an emergency. They passed numerous suitable airports with ATC Towers that they could have landed at safely. Instead they chose to fly for hours across multiple ARTCCs rather than divert. Despite this blatant choice to disregard the FARs management at ZAB did not want us to issue a pilot deviation.Management at ZAB is afraid of the airlines and of confrontation. They routinely refuse to enforce the rules. They should have told Aircraft X to send an ACARS message to the pilots and to tell them to land as soon as practicable. ZAB should have issued a pilot deviation to Aircraft X. It is likely that the pilots simply weren't aware of this rule; but if EVERYONE is too afraid to tell them about it because they don't want to cost the airlines money then they will never be educated about it and will repeat the mistake.