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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My understanding is that businesses can refuse services which conflict with their beliefs, morals, etc, not broadly refuse to serve people

So you can't refuse someone for being a MAGA clown, but you could refuse to print MAGA shirts for a customer

[–] PillowTalk420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like this whole thing is simply just a clarification on what was already the case. Like, a baker can't just refuse a gay person for being gay. But they could refuse to make that gay person a huge dick shaped cake because, presumably, they would also refuse to make a huge dick shaped cake for a straight woman as well. The reason the customer wants the dick cake is irrelevant; merely that the cake is a dick.

It's close to that but not quite - a dick cake is a dick cake, but a wedding cake with a man and woman couple vs. a wedding cake with a man and man couple is treated differently

So, this is treating representing gay marriage as if it is unethical and vulgar which is clearly discriminatory

The law still doesn't permit the shop owner to blanket refuse service to someone who is gay (or MAGA), but fully allows them to descriminate against gay people exercising the same freedoms non-gays have, like getting married