2542
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bric@lemm.ee 35 points 2 years ago

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

[-] Cornfed@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago
[-] Zyansheep@vlemmy.net 13 points 2 years ago

Very important distinction.

It'd be pretty bad if hotels or restaurants started restricting access based on sex or race!

[-] SpaceToast@mander.xyz 11 points 2 years ago

It’s a huge difference and nobody seems to understand it.

[-] ramblechat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

But I can see this embolden racists / homophobes. They are generally dumb, and will probably refuse to serve people citing this decision and will either end up in court or get away with it.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2542 points (94.0% liked)

Malicious Compliance

20 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:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS