this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2343 points (94.5% liked)

Malicious Compliance

18113 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jmondi 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 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 0 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.

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

So can the wedding website designer be sued for not selling them a generic wedding website with no mention of them being gay, that they could fill in themselves?

[–] jmondi 1 points 1 year ago

From my understanding, that would be a different case entirely. So yeah, they could be sued.