this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
321 points (94.7% liked)

Malicious Compliance

29 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This was always legal. I'm an attorney, I do not represent any Trump supporters. If a client says something favorable about trump, they are no longer my client. They are just too stupid, judgement too poor, don't understand difference between reality and fantasy. They make the absolute worst clients.

[–] Zyansheep@vlemmy.net 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not sure about discrimination against customers based on ideology, but I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate against customers based on protected class (sex, race, orientation, etc.) What this supreme court case does (IIUC) is that companies are now allowed to not provide services to protected classes if those services constitute speech. So if you are a restaurant owner, or a hotel, you still can't refuse a gay couple, if you are a cake designer, you can't refuse to make a cake, but you can refuse to do anything remotely gay-related to that cake, if you are a web designer, you can refuse to make something altogether because the government can't restrict or compel speech (and graphic design is speech).

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is it is vague imo. Baking a cake could be speech to this court

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Baking the cake is definitely not speech ( although I appreciate your point about this Court interpreting it that way).

However, decorating the cake could reasonably be construed as speech, especially if there is text, logos, etc in the decoration.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Gotcha, yeah I agree. I personally don't think a website designer building something for a client is either. But we live in a dystopia right now. Hope you are doing well this evening.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Money is speech, right? Does that make the ramifications of this decision go a lot farther? I don't see how yet, but it seems like this ruling may have broad impacts when people start getting creative with it...

[–] meteotsunami@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bold assuming the corrupted six ever used anything close to consistency to inform their rulings.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, there's one thing that's pretty consistent: they'll do whatever their wealthy backers want them to do.

[–] PillowTalk420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

money is speech, right?

I mean, they do say that "money talks" and last time I checked, talking is a form of speech.

[–] damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a problem with the US legal system. Every decision is a precedent, no matter how specific it is.

[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

This is how common law everywhere that England colonized works. It’s not endemic to the US.

[–] axtualdave@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If they're trump supporters... they probably wouldn't be paying you anyway.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah. Many of them have stumbled their way into money. Lots of trade people and small businesses, which makes up my typical clientele, others are sons and daughters of second or third generation union humps. Many grew up with one working parent being able to provide and that union parent has one or two pensions and is still hustling jobs. So, many of them can afford a lawyer. They are unfailingly whiney babies who are an awful combination of privileged existence and self agrandizement. I blame social media for validating their most half-baked ideas and emotional reactions.

[–] axtualdave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm sure they can afford a lawyer. I was more referring to the link between being a Trump supporter and Trump's own ... habit of not paying his lawyers.

[–] Snekeyes@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

trump griftes any monies left

...I feel like you've got some stories you could be sharing

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, yeah, at that point they're just a big fat liability.

[–] 0xb0b@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] teuast@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

And they learned it from watching Trump.