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

Malicious Compliance

19673 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jadedwench 339 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.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 years ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JustZ 258 points 2 years ago (7 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.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 2 years ago (8 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 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 years ago

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

[–] axtualdave 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 007v2 192 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HPTF 157 points 2 years ago (27 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.

[–] [email protected] 82 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.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] [email protected] 130 points 2 years ago

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason! :D

Especially racist sexist homophobic chud dipshit fascist bootlickers.

[–] mawkishdave 94 points 2 years ago (5 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.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Exactly. A Trump sign at a business guarantees that business won't get my money now or in the future.

[–] Techmaster 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There's a large grocery store chain here that the owner was at the Jan 6th insurrection. A lot of people, including myself, refuse to shop there now.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ThatGirlKylie 82 points 2 years ago (10 children)

WAIT! NOT LIKE THAT THOUGH! IT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO KEEP THE GAYS OUT!

/s

But that's one way to do it. No churches, no religious people, no trump supporters, no republicans allowed at all. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] fne8w2ah 71 points 2 years ago (15 children)

That's something that I could get behind.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Psychlops 67 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Such an unbelievable ruling, but this is really the best possible response. If conservatives thought they were persecuted before…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Landmammals 64 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kittengineer 57 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (18 children)

For me the difference is in refusing to serve someone because how they were born vs the choices they make.

Totally ok with the later, but the laws are supposed to prevent the former. Just like it being illegal to discriminate against someone just because they are black or white or Asian or whatever.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Kinglink 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

You could always do this. But you'd be a damn idiot to antagonize half a potential customer base but ... Well that's one way to run a business.

[–] Methylman 58 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I may be misinformed - but I was led to believe this is a book shop and therefore unlikely to lose many customers

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cley_faye 27 points 2 years ago

the potential customers that would already point their finger at you screaming "shame" if they saw you do business with people they dislike? Good riddance.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] nostalgicgamerz 36 points 2 years ago

“Religious bigots get the fuck out“

[–] romaselli 33 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Put up a No Whites signs in front of your businesses to really make some noise.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Thorosofbeer 30 points 2 years ago (9 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Not any reason though, the case didn't change any of the protected classes like sex, religion, or sexual orientation. It just made it so a company can choose what "expressive work" they want to do, especially websites. So it's legal to say you don't want to make someone a custom website if you disagree with the contents of the website (ie a website that supports gay marriage), but it's still illegal to refuse to make someone a website because the customer is gay. You can choose what you make, but you can't choose who you sell it to

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 years ago (8 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.

[–] [email protected] 24 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] x4740N 24 points 2 years ago

The more I see news about the United States the less I'm surprised

load more comments
view more: next ›