this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2457 points (94.0% liked)

Malicious Compliance

19549 readers
4 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
[–] Alwaysfallingupyup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Nothing wrong with this. Their business their choice. Only time will tell if it was a good choice. depending where it is I dont think it will be. I think everyone is tired of the back and forth bs !

[–] Ryumast3r@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Back and forth bs? Please define

[–] InternetUser2012@rammy.site 1 points 1 year ago

Cult 45 with their red hat dunce caps is definitely not tired of the back and forth. They don't give a shit as long as it OwNz ThE dEmZ!!!

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

I defend free speech, even the shitty speech by bigoted assholes, but violating a person's civil rights is not protected by free speech.

Once you cross the line into preventing someone from doing a thing just because of who they are, that's no longer speech but action. And of course the rights of business owners to serve who they want to is a grey area, but that's what we have the courts for. Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS is so heavily politicized that it seems unable to adjudicate these issues impartially.