321
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wokehobbit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Well within their right. A business can serve whoever the fuck it wants. You don't like it, don't shop there.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

All fun and games until you can't find anywhere to shop or buy anything.

You want to act like it's the odd shop and you can just go next door, but just look at history. Really, take an objective look at history.

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago

This is what Republicans wanted after all. Remember gay wedding cakes??

[-] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren't serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

This is a bad take. When we, society, allow you to register as a business, we form an agreement. Part of that agreement is that you follow certain rules. We make those rules to better society.

Some rules are things like pay taxes, or don't sell outdated food. Some rules are there to make sure anyone can shop there, without discussion.

Those rules are important because it's very possible for a small number of business owners to make a group of people's lives very difficult, especially out in rural areas where people don't have a lot of options.

For a concrete example, let's say Pfizer cures cancer. Do you want them to be able to say they won't sell to Christians? You can't just "go elsewhere". But now this is allowed.

The much more dangerous part of this ruling is that the supreme Court ruled on a case where there was no standing. A lot of people don't realize that having standing is one of the cornerstones of our legal structure. Now, in theory, any idiot could sue for any dreamed up scenario and have a much better chance of winning in court.

[-] FinnFooted@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it's to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It's a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago

Gay. Wedding. Cakes.

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

Malicious Compliance

29 readers
1 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