this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2632 points (94.3% liked)

Malicious Compliance

21078 readers
3 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
 
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Alexmitter@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (13 children)

European here so it may not be clear to me, but I thought discriminating against religious movements like the church or trump supporters is still illegal. Correct?

[–] SocializedHermit@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Political affiliation is not protected, religious affiliation is. It's true that the Right has been doing their level best to politicise their religious feelings into public life, so that barring Trump supporters effectively excludes Evangelicals and a majority of Catholics. This may not be their desired outcome, but perhaps they shouldn't have tied their religious sentiment to political causes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] this@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Religions are protected classes under the constitution, political groups are not. Free speech is also protected. The combination of these factors means that weather the shop keeper in OPs photo is breaking the law is entirely dependant on how you interpret the constitution, which is what the supreme court is supposed to do.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I think the shop in question could get in trouble over the church statement if they are not doing something "free speech" related, that is the only way the new ruling applies. Though what the free speech bit means is gonna depend on what the fedsoc six want, and they will steer it to the GOP always.

[–] bric@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Yeah, religion is a protected class, so while they can probably refuse trump supporters the sign about churches is probably illegal. If this is some type of store that makes customized products then they can refuse to customize anything in ways they don't agree with, but it's totally illegal to refuse service just based on who the customer is

[–] BurnTheRight@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Political affiliation is not a protected class. You are permitted to discriminate based on politics. Religious affiliation is a protected class. You cannot discriminate solely on the basis of religion... Until now.

Conservatives love to discriminate, but their new rulings are also making it easier to discriminate against them.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Willer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

fair

my god the store looks gross what they sellin?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yokonzo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (12 children)

I'm out of the loop, what did the SCOTUS do now?

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-can-deny-same-sex-couples-service/

A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her First Amendment right to free speech.

[–] leapingleopard@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We can discriminate against Republicans legally and with blessings.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Republican is not a protected class, you have always been able to do that.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I feel like "no mask, no vaccination proof, no service" should make a comeback.

[–] yokonzo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I'm out of the loop, what did the SCOTUS do now?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›