• Thorosofbeer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • bric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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

      • Thorosofbeer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Bazzatron@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?