Malicious Compliance

19547 readers

2 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

200

Businesses can discriminate against their customers? Alright then... (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by minimar@lemmy.world to c/maliciouscompliance@lemmy.world

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jmondi@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And if that was the case and they wanted to pursue their legal options, they could sue the baker.

[–] Arodg25@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They could. And theyll probably have too. The problem with this law is it really sets the tone and reinforces peoples shitty views.

[–] jmondi@programming.dev -1 points 1 year ago

I definitely agree that stupid people are stupid, and they will either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand the ruling and skew it to their messed up views. It doesn’t make SCOTUS wrong in this case though.