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.
Bitcoin dropped in value, but is still very high and actively traded. It's hardly in the dust bin.
This sucks, but malicious compliance has also always been people's head cannon fantasies. There's zero chance that most of this situations went down as claimed. Bearing that in mind and with there being Jo karma to white on Lemmy, does it matter if they're reposts?
"This is why people on the left are so exasperated with centrists"
Are you suggesting that Macron is a centrist? Because I don't follow.
Liftoff is going well enough for me as well. Still miss RiF.
The only real reason for every car on the road not to go hybrid is cost and cost isn't a factor for Lamborghini. Hybrid drivetrains are the perfect answer to the Ice's gross inefficiencies when at idle or lower speeds.
I believe this is probably what will happen if this ever becomes a big issue. GDPR was never intended to be navigable for anything except giant proprietary blob tech companies.
You should check out the song "Patches" If that's what you're interested in.
I'm not seeing the issue here. It did pass. Politicians aren't normally the type to take a moral high ground in issues. If there's money available for your state, you should take it.
I believe this is probably what will happen if this ever becomes a big issue. GDPR was never intended to be navigable for anything except giant proprietary blob tech companies.
If that is human trafficking then every bus picking up illegals in Texas and taken them to the dozens and dozens of other places is also human trafficking.
A Baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake he doesn't want to make. He shouldn't even have to give a reason. Anything less than that is by definition forced labor.
Facebook Messenger isn't E2E encrypted. If they wanted their messages immune to warrants they should have used one of a number of different methods available.
It's still wrong. I'm perfectly happy to consider all aspects of AA, but so long as any part of it stands on determining someone's admission based on race it will always be racism and I'm not in favor of racism for any reason.
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.
"If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they'll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause."
This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don't want to.
I believe this is probably what will happen if this ever becomes a big issue. GDPR was never intended to be navigable for anything except giant proprietary blob tech companies.
Maybe it makes less sense to send them to California, but there is a non political angle to sending them to other states. Texas can't just absorb them all, every state has finite resources, and Texas is extremely taxed, especially the border towns.
"If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they'll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause."
This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don't want to.
Personally I think you should be able to decline any service to anyone for any reason. Anything less than that is government compelled work.
You mean the non-heavily moderated platforms allow for discussion on topics you care about by people who disagree with you.
From the title alone you can tell this article is going to be sensationalist because the law doesn't "ban" water breaks. That's not even a mistake it is an intentional lie to make it sound worse.
Ultimately I agree with the Affirmative Action ruling. The Equal Protections clause doesn't say, "All racism is bad except some racism for the right reasons, that's okay." it just says there is to be no discrimination based on race.
Affirmative Action was racism with good intentions.
"Facebook turns over..."
After being forced to by a warrant...