this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2569 points (94.2% liked)

Malicious Compliance

19562 readers
3 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorosofbeer@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (16 children)

This isn't really malicious compliance. This is the very foundation of the point made by the Supreme Court. You should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is the government engaging in violence to force you to work.

[–] Bazzatron@reddthat.com 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean - there are protected classes, right? You can't say "no whites" or "no Jews", I'm not a religious man - but where's the line between a political ideology and a religious one?

Or am I totally mistaken and this is completely permitted in the states?

[–] bruz@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That kind of discrimination is generally illegal, even after the recent supreme court case.

What the ruling says is that some kinds of business, such as designing a website, decorating a cake, or writing a song, for example, are considered speech. In those cases the right of the designer/decorator/songwriter to control their speech takes precedence.

However, this doesn't mean you can kick someone out of your restaurant for being Jewish or refuse to make a non-marriage related website because a client is gay. It's only cases where speech is involved.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)