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

"If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they'll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause."

This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don't want to.

[–] SeriousBug@infosec.pub 4 points 2 years ago

That's not what equal protections meant though. It just meant you can't refuse to serve a customer based on their protected statuses like religion or sexual orientation.

If a church calls you to order a cake but you were planning to take time off work for a while, you could still say no. It was only a problem if you say "no, I don't bake cakes for Christians". That's not slavery. You can stop working, nobody was forcing you. Just that when you do work, you can't discriminate.