this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2459 points (94.0% liked)

Malicious Compliance

19674 readers
2 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kittengineer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That’s great and all, but I personally don’t think that is right for fair.

Imagine a baker saying they don’t want to bake a wedding cake because of an interracial couple or for black people. I get the law is different, I’m saying personally I don’t agree with that law and think that’s a load of shit.

[–] emperorbenguin@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The problem is you're wrong though, because legally you have to look at the lowest common denominator.

Imagine you are a baker and someone wants you to bake a nazi cake? Would you want to? Hell no, but saying that a producer is required by law to perform any creative production asked of by the client means that you as a Jewish gay person (hypothetically) would be forced to bake that nazi cake.

Similarly, it doesn't really matter what's "right" it doesn't change that for some people, lgbt issues are considered religious sin, and they feel like they would be committing a religious sin in baking a pride cake. Now are they loony? Yeah they are. But it doesn't change that you cannot force someone to artistically create something against their will. ESPECIALLY when you can just go to another baker who will.

[–] Kittengineer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Again I draw the line on discrimination based on how a person was born vs their decisions.

Bakers can say no to nazis, democrats, republicans, tattoos, whatever.

But bakers being able to say no just because how you are born: white, black, male, female, gay, straight… that’s horse shit.

Why would argue that’s ok or morally correct or fair?

[–] emperorbenguin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem is that while it is obvious to you that sexual orientation is a matter of birth and not choice, it isn't to, to be honest, the vast majority of people on this planet.

And also, just to put things in perspective, even the science isn't fully convinced. Most evidence tells us it's something from birth, and my personal life anecdote tells me I'm bisexual since the day I was born, but truthfully we don't have any hard evidence to prove it, since it is nearly impossible to prove.

This is why it has to be included with the rest.

[–] venia_sil@vlemmy.net 0 points 2 years ago

This, and not to mention the science changes.

The color of the skin might be something you are "born as", but as Michael Jackson proved you can certainly change it. Does it mean it is a choice, and not "something that you are"? What happens once CRISPR becomes commonplace?

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 years ago

It's a fine line, but it comes down to this: it's not OK for the baker to refuse to bake a cake for someone in a protected class.

However, it's also not OK for someone in a protected class to compel speech from the baker.

Ask the baker to bake a plain cake with no messaging on it: the baker can't refuse on the basis of any protected attributes, like the customer's race, etc.

Ask the baker to decorate the cake with a "happy pride day" message? Only if the baker agrees to that expression. You can't compel speech.

It works the other way too: you can't compel the baker to write something they disagree with if they don't want to. It's clear why a baker would be within their rights to refuse a "I'm glad all the Jews died" message on the cake. The baker is within their rights to decline any expression they don't like. And that's the way it should be.