inb4 get woke go broke, rip their business. not a good look in the bud light era
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
856 points (93.4% liked)
Malicious Compliance
21409 readers
5 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.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Now that #SupremeCourt says we can discriminate, I'm trying to figure out what to tag content. #NoMAGA #NoRepublicans #QueerOnly #NoBreeders #NoChristians
load more comments
(4 replies)
I think this is ok. It’s how the market works. If you have enough people who agree with your stance, then you’ll survive, if not, you fail. Transversely, if you are trying to make a profitable business, you remove all roadblocks from a consumer who wants to do business with you.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Nothing wrong with this. Their business their choice. Only time will tell if it was a good choice. depending where it is I dont think it will be. I think everyone is tired of the back and forth bs !
I defend free speech, even the shitty speech by bigoted assholes, but violating a person's civil rights is not protected by free speech.
Once you cross the line into preventing someone from doing a thing just because of who they are, that's no longer speech but action. And of course the rights of business owners to serve who they want to is a grey area, but that's what we have the courts for. Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS is so heavily politicized that it seems unable to adjudicate these issues impartially.
Back and forth bs? Please define
This isn't really malicious compliance. This is the very foundation of the point made by the Supreme Court. You should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is the government engaging in violence to force you to work.
load more comments
(8 replies)
They are only hurting themselves. Let them have at it
I'm personally offended by this, but...
- Regulating my emotions is my own problem and no one else's
- The business owner is well within their rights to do so.
Just shop somewhere else.