2253
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FinnFooted@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it's to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It's a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think I'm confused. I'm pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think I'm confused. I'm pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.

[-] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

You're right in that the current state of the country does not actually reflect the ideals it professes to be based on, and this Supreme Court ruling is proof of that.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2253 points (94.9% liked)

Malicious Compliance

18048 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.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS