2603
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2603 points (94.1% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19689 readers
3 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm out of the loop, what did the SCOTUS do now?
They allowed a company to discriminate against a gay customer for religious reasons, when they requested to make a website them. It's important to note that the supposed customer never actually contacted the company, is not gay and had been married to a woman for about 20 years. So this was all based on a lie
The court opinion wasn't based on any specific customer, if you read the SCOTUS opinion the website designer didn't even have a business designing websites, they were just challenging the law in case they decided to make a business that did.