this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
855 points (93.4% liked)

Malicious Compliance

21348 readers
6 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HPTF@lemmy.world 112 points 2 years ago (21 children)

Quick side note: you are within your rights to refuse service based on political affiliation full stop -- it's not protected under the equal protections clause.

That being said, the issue is not about denying service full-stop, but the right to refuse expression of values you find to be wrong. Believe it or not, these cases are important for everyone and guarantees that the state can't force you to create messaging in support of (i.e. endorse, which is a form of speech) something you disagree with.

It's not granting the right to discriminate. It's protecting your first amendment right to not be compelled to engage in speech you disagree with.

For example, say I go to a bakery run by devout Muslims and request a cake that depicts a cross with the phrase "only through Jesus may you find eternal life" underneath. That baker may be uncomfortable with the idea of creating that design as it not only goes against their own sincerely held beliefs, but may conflict with some negative views they may hold of Christians or Jesus (or even the particular denomination of the customer).

That Muslim baker has every right to refuse the design of the cake on free speech grounds. Religion is a protected class in the equal protections clause, so the Christian may feel like they're being discriminated against, but it's the message (which is considered to be speech) and not the individual being a Christian causing the issue.

That Muslim baker cannot blanket-refuse any Christians from buying any cakes. 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. In that case, service is being refused based on the traits of the customer rather than on the particular message being expressed on the cake.

It's silly and I think people would be better off just accepting the work and taking the money. If I was aware of a business that made cakes, websites, whatever -- but refused certain designs based on their personal views, I would simply discontinue any further support of them. I'd prefer a business who puts their own shit aside and serves whomever wants to pay them.. but to compel them to suck it up and either compromise on their views or close up shop is directly contradictory to one of the most important rights we recognize here -- to speak freely and without cohersion from the state.

The business owner isn't doing anything wrong with their signs, but they're completely missing the point of the decision and comes off as a bit silly.

[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 67 points 2 years ago (6 children)

What you described was not the actual outcome of the ruling.

The wedding website designer did not give them a website with no mention of being gay, that they could fill in themselves. The website designer was allowed to fully refuse them any kind of website at all. Just like refusing a blank wedding cake because the couple is gay.

The justification of the decision was not in good faith. It stepped away over the bounds of protecting against compelled speech. And they deserve to feel the consequences.

[–] Arodg25@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

In theory yes, but what's going to happen now, is 2 obviously gay men will go to that Muslim baker and ask for blank cake they will decorate themselves and Muslim will ask them to leave.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] jadedwench@lemmy.world 89 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Transcription for the blind: Storefront with two paper signs taped to the window. Left sign says "Since the supreme court had ruled that businesses can discriminate...NO SALES TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS. Right sign says "We only sell to churches that fly the pride flag" and has an illustrated image of a pride flag and a church.

-Transcription done by a human volunteer. Let me know how I can do better.

[–] Thedogspaw@midwest.social 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Thunder_Caulk@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

*hand out treats

Good human

Good human

[–] GrandpaDJ@vlemmy.net 11 points 2 years ago
[–] denhafiz_@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Thanks dude. You make the world a better place.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago

Thank you, I'm not blind but I appreciate you helping out others

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years 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 34 points 2 years ago (5 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 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 8 points 2 years 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (3 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...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago

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

[–] axtualdave@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years 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 7 points 2 years 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 46 points 2 years ago (15 children)

That's something that I could get behind.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] 007v2@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Those signs won’t stop them because they can’t read

[–] mochi@lemdit.com 13 points 2 years ago (7 children)

There's a contradiction here. The Supreme Court ruled that Speech can't be compelled, not that you could bar certain people from a business. You could decline to decorate a cake with "MAGA", but not decline to sell a cake to a Republican, for example. What those signs are promoting is still illegal.

[–] VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Forgive me, but I don't believe political affiliation is a protected class--protected classes are the only things people can't discriminate based on. So like, race, sex, religion are protected, but democrat/republican/green party aren't protected. Businesses can legally discriminate against non-protected classes. It's just usually a bad business strategy to turn customers away.

Edit: the second sign is definitely more questionable, as it does specifically discriminate based on beliefs. I was mostly focused on the first sign.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Willer@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Honestly i would expect that a webdesigner would not wanna put up with my bullshit way earlier.

Understandable, have a nice day. but no we wanna make a scene.

[–] Landmammals@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

MAGA isn't a protected class. This has always been allowed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mawkishdave@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (8 children)

To be fair if I see a sign saying they support Trump, GOP, or anti-LGBT I keep walking on by. I have seen many places that say if you are a bigot, sexist, or racist you are not welcome here. Those are the places I spend my money at.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›