This isn’t really malicious compliance. This is the very foundation of the point made by the Supreme Court. You should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is the government engaging in violence to force you to work.
Not just any business. The decision was specfically about what they called ‘expressive activity’ such as graphic designers, artists, speechwriters, and movie directors.
I mean - there are protected classes, right? You can’t say “no whites” or “no Jews”, I’m not a religious man - but where’s the line between a political ideology and a religious one?
Or am I totally mistaken and this is completely permitted in the states?
I don’t think it’s a smart decision. I think discriminating for any reason makes business sense nor will it win you any allies, but it should be legal. Anything less than that is the government forcing you to work.
When I was about 3-4 I hated clothes and wanted to be naked all the time. One day I was in the kitchen wearing my preferred outfit when my mom told me to put some clothes on. I went into my room and soon returned with one sock.
[offtopic] Where are you from, OP? Is it Eastern Europe? I don’t think you’re French, because you would have used « and ». But you used „ and ”. Come, tell me, is is Switzerland? Bulgaria? Russia? :)
Lol so when the market goes down, there’s no change in the report and of course when the market goes up they obv celebrate the gain. Which means over time the numbers can only increase. What could possibly go wrong?!
Reminds me of firearms ownership in certain jurisdictions. They don't want people to do it so they make it as laborious, tedious and time-consuming as the courts will allow.
maliciouscompliance
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.