this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2587 points (94.3% liked)

Malicious Compliance

19674 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.

======

======

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
[–] [email protected] 234 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] 75 points 2 years ago (3 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).

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

I think that was the majority opinion's goal, they think the line between what is speech and what isn't should be spelled out more minutely with more legal precedent rather than what we had before where all speech in relation to selling a service was regulated under anti-discrimination statutes.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago (2 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...

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bold assuming the corrupted six ever used anything close to consistency to inform their rulings.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

I mean, there's one thing that's pretty consistent: they'll do whatever their wealthy backers want them to do.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

money is speech, right?

I mean, they do say that "money talks" and last time I checked, talking is a form of speech.

[–] damnYouSun 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is a problem with the US legal system. Every decision is a precedent, no matter how specific it is.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Well, Roe v Wade set a precedent, which was then reverted ~50 years later, so I'm not sure how much precedents apply to the supreme court (it definitely applies to lower courts tho)

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

This is how common law everywhere that England colonized works. It’s not endemic to the US.

[–] flambonkscious 32 points 2 years ago

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

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

trump griftes any monies left

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago

I mean, yeah, at that point they're just a big fat liability.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

And they learned it from watching Trump.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago