this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
3298 points (94.9% liked)

Malicious Compliance

19664 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:

[email protected] [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dmtalon 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I can't imagine owning a business and actively promoting your willing to give up sales because of some random person's beliefs.

I fully understand consumers not shopping at a store that puts up signs you disagree with, you can just go to another one.

Nothing wrong in believing in and supporting the good things. I just think I'd not agitate customers if it were my business.

[–] themeatbridge 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's the ridiculous thing about this entire case. This was a web designer and bigot who made websites for married couples. There were no homosexual couples asking the designer to make them a wedding website. She had one fake web request, and the Illegitimate Court said she had a right to discriminate against imaginary people.

This opens the floodgates to the rest of the bigots who want to protest the existence of people they hate by denying them services.

[–] twack 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This case is bullshit, as you already stated. The problem is that the purpose of it is to lay the groundwork for medical professionals to deny service to "ungodly" people.

[–] Mirshe 1 points 1 year ago

Haven't there already been state-level cases that allow this? I swear I saw something about this out of Tennessee.

[–] queermunist 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the link. I just read the article. So the Supreme Court made an all-encompassing ruling based on a lawsuit filed over an easily-verifiable-as-fabricated story. It would be bizarro shit if we didn't already know the court's just doing exactly what they were put there to do. It's completely fucked up.

[–] 2dollarsim 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for pointing that out! It's the most obvious psy-op yet and people still aren't catching on.

[–] queermunist 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn't want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals. Then they go and basically ignore the entire concept of standing and make a ruling based on literally nothing! I think I need to reexamine how smart I think they are...

[–] ElectroVagrant 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn’t want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals.

An argument I've seen to explain this decision was that it detracted from the judiciary's influence/power by instead empowering state legislatures. Take that as you will, but I wouldn't put it past them.

[–] queermunist 2 points 1 year ago

I guess? But like, if the Independent State Legislature of California decided to go along with the decision and become the People's Republic of California then the Court could just say "no but not like that tho" and then ban California from doing that. They must still care somewhat about credibility/legitimacy, but I guess they just couldn't help themselves when the chance to attack The Gays was available.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

She*, and she stole a real (straight, married, with children) man's identity to use as hypothetical. The whole thing should be absolutely thrown out by a higher court - the court of the people.

Also, what happens if a scotus judge is assassinated? Like for real, what if a terrorist straight up murders one? If it's the president, the vice president takes over, and if them.... There's like a power list for that. But, what about a scotus? Does the standing president just get to pick one again? Or is there a list of rank? Or is it like monarchy where the judge has a written will or a say over who replaces them? Goddamn; why do we even have this shitty system.

[–] themeatbridge 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks, fixed.

Scotus judges won't be assassinated because the violent terrorists support them.

[–] queermunist 1 points 1 year ago

Well there's still 3 liberals that could be replaced by the next Republican.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I don't believe there has ever been a SC Judge assassinated, all vacancies are to be filled by the President and approved by the Senate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

More realistically though, the wealthiest Republican party donors pick the SC, and have been doing so for the better part of the last few decades now.

Nobody else has a real say, and whenever somebody attempts to regain control for the people, the propaganda machine starts a'hummin', and we all start going at each other's throats again.

[–] Soggy 10 points 1 year ago

Some people have principles beyond "make money."

[–] queermunist 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you imagine having principles that are more important than profitability?

[–] dmtalon 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are zero "principles" involved in that sign. It's one ass trying to piss off other asses.

[–] queermunist -3 points 1 year ago

You don't actually know that, though to be fair, an actually principled stance would be to refuse to serve all Republicans and not specifically Trump supporters. In some ways Trump is becoming the lesser evil of the Party when compared to some of the other monsters running against him.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Literally cannot imagine

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Have you read the other comments here? Every left leaning person responding is saying the same thing as the sign only against Trump supporters.

[–] dustojnikhummer 2 points 1 year ago

TDS is back at it again

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is the underlying difference, what is more important: morals or a buck.

But if you're a trump supporter you don't get to have either which is just confusing.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Wtf are you talking about... Inflation is through the roof on everything since Biden came into office. Grocery bill has doubled, gas has doubled and my paycheck looks worse thanks to all of the money he's sending to Ukraine so he can launder it back to himself and his buddies. As far as morals go any man who inappropriately touches and sniffs every young girl in arms reach doesn't have any. Either you're in severe denial of who Biden is or you know but refuse to accept it. We know who Trump is and we know he's not perfect, but he helped out this country and ALL of its people more than any president since JFK.

[–] dustojnikhummer -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can’t imagine owning a business and actively promoting your willing to give up sales because of some random person’s beliefs.

Read the rest of this thread. Some sort of TDS here.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah - I have no idea why all these stupid libruls are angry at the 10s of millions of traitorous dipshits who voted for a traitorous dipshit who did everything he could to ruin the country. Must be TDS.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who are we talking about here? Obama or Biden?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Aww. I'm sorry - did you hit your head?