this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2445 points (94.0% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19224 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.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
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
view the rest of the comments
Bad example. The cases where businesses could refuse service to a customer were due to religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Not liking Trump would not fall under that category. Not sure about the other example though.
In general though, I think this would be fine. As long as this business is not funded or supported by taxpayer money.
"My personal religion requires me to refuse service to Trump supporters." Boom, protected.
These "religious freedoms" cited are completely arbitrarily defined. Anyone can claim they have a religion with tenets that exclude specific groups of people or promote civil rights abuses. Having a religion that says "you must commit crime" does not actually give you the right within society to commit crime.
What about that lady in Texas who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? Same exact story, but she was treated like a villain. Why is this time ok?
It's ok now because the Supreme Court just upheld that a woman who said she was asked to design a website for a gay wedding by a man "Stewart", could discriminate and not serve him.
The fact that they tracked him down and found that he has been married to a woman for the last 15 years and the claims may be complete fiction.
The rules have changed so now the court has made discrimination not a bad thing, so the right wing will have to deal with being discriminated against if they want so badly to discriminate themselves.