Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Those sources do not seem to help your case. Many jobs do not have written contracts, they are more the implied contracts of the sort in "Employment at Will" conditions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Teacher: Christian faith prohibits treating transgendered students with respect and dignity
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Curious George
Veteran Member
He is not really misinterpreting the law. He is misrepresenting the scenario. The contract would have covered this type of behavior. Consider @Jose Fly post #199. There are likely multiple terminable offenses according to any teacher contract.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Teachers are rarely at-will employees.
Curious George
Veteran Member
But insubordination of direction related to instruction time and student teacher relations.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You're splitting hairs. His insubordination was over how he treated a student.
You stated, "If the contact does not contain nor reference policy which the employer is subject to, any order outside contractual obligations is a breach of contract and illegal."
So again, where's the citation that says "if it's not specifically in a contract, the employer is powerless to do anything about it"?
I know my contract quite well. There's nothing in it about sending crazy emails to partners. So according to you, my employer is powerless to do anything about my purple monkey dragon emails.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That's true, they will be under contract. And the wording that explains why what this teacher did was wrong would usually be well laid out. I could always ask my brother what sort of contract he has to sign.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
That's not how it works. That's not at all how any of that works: Or Else? When did YOU decide to be straight?
Most of what you said about the subject is nonsensical, true...
Santa Claus is the same as religion. Nobody is forcing anyone: you are free to believe the moon is made of Green Cheese all you like.
However, you don't get to force such a silly idea in science class-- unless you have scientific evidence supporting the idea.
So far? All your ideas with respect to gay/straight? Is unsupported by anything scientific.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Compelling speech is a violation of the First Amendment.
You cannot force your ideology on another person.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, the First Amendment says that Congress will not limit free speech. It says nothing about limiting what employers can order while people are at work.
Perhaps you know of a court case that supports this claim?
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
You believe that compelling someone's speech is not in violation of the First Amendment?
You believe employers can require their employees to accept an ideology they do not accept or agree with?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You appear to be confused. A person can be told what they can and cannot say while in an official capacity by an employer, but that is not a requirement to accept an ideology. They can accept or reject any ideology that they like.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
A person's sexuality has almost nothing to do with their perceived sex.
I don't think you understand what we are talking about in this thread.
Nice zinger.
One for the School Yard Hall of Fame.
Not at all.
Anyone can believe whatever they want, but they can't force other people to act according to someone's own personal beliefs.
You believe that an employer can compel an employee to say "Merry Christmas!" to their customers, even if they are not Christian, do not celebrate the holiday or find it offensive?
There is absolutely zero scientific evidence that supports the idea that a biological man who believes he is a woman is in actuality a biological woman and should be treated as such.
Yeah, now I know you don't understand what we have been talking about here.
This thread has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
No I do not velieve compelling someone's speech is necessarily against the first Ammendment. The first Ammendment protects government infringement on citizen speech. While people who choose to work for tge government do mot entirely relinquish their right to free speech, pretending the governmemt cannot act in the normal capacity of an employer is mind boggling. It is hard for me to think that anyone believes that a school board cam have no regulation over a teachers language during instruction time.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I never said that employers could have no regulations over a teacher's actions or language.
There are many things employees should not say or do while at work. That is a given.
I understand rules and policies about what a person should not say at work, but forcing or compelling someone to say something?
Not just saying any old thing either, but the affirmation of an ideology that not everyone agrees with?
In your opinion, an employer should be able to force their employees to say, "Merry Christmas!" to customers?
It doesn't matter what the employees believes concerning Christ or the celebration of holidays?
You might be okay with that, but I'm not and the courts tend not to like it either, which is why so many people say, "Happy Holidays!" instead.
There are many people that believe a man can magically become a woman and vice versa, but there are others who don't believe that.
Or is it okay just so long as only the "Christian" is forced to act and speak against their beliefs?
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
You honestly haven't heard of the many cases won against employers who fired employees for not saying "Merry Christmas!" to customers, attending Christmas celebrations or for refusing to decorate or wear Christmas costumes?
I have mentioned the "Merry Christmas!" examples many times on this thread.
Most of those cases involve Jehovah's Witnesses and are easily found online.
So you believe that an employer can force their employees to say "Merry Christmas!" to their customers, no matter how the employee feels about it?
The courts don't agree with you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You mentioned people being fired, you did not do your homework and present any links to reliable sources. In case you do not realize a person claiming to have been fired for such an action is not good enough. He or she needs to have won a lawsuit where that was found to be illegal.
And yes, an employer does have the ability to tell you what to say or not to say. Here is an article on a worker that insisted on using the phrase "Have a blessed day" with clients. She was fired for that, she did sue, and she lost:
Can My Boss Stop Me From Saying “Merry Christmas” To Clients? Best Lawyer Reply | The Spitz Law Firm
If the teacher took the job voluntarily and is free to quit, none of the duties of the job were "compelled."
They can certainly require their employees to treat people with respect as they interact with them as part of their job.
All the moreso if those people are kids who have been placed under the employee's care.
If your faith prevents you from doing this, then too bad for you. An anti-trans teacher has no more right to demand that the school accommodate his views than a Muslim cook at Denny's has a right to demand that he not be around bacon.
Why on Earth would you assume that an employer who has a non-discrimination policy wouldn't actually make following the policy a job requirement?
Human Resources - West Point Public Schools
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Religions believe in natural things that are part of natural creation. They can distinguish between what is natural and what is manmade or artificial. Transgender is artificial since it depends too much on science and technology ,because a natural metamorphosis is not possible.
If I thought I was a bird but in a human body, is this natural or pathological? Say I had the money to buy surgery and robotics, can I now claim to be a bird or would my bird dream still be considered artificial and odd?
In sports, may athletes have the self vision of being bigger, with more muscle mass and more strength. If this does not happen naturally with exercise and diet, many athletes turn to medicine and artificial additives, such as steroids. If they have a dream or vision of self as being larger, but they need to take steroids, to reach there, is this now natural?
We can give growth hormones to cows so they become larger. Say we can convinced people that the cow's self of self is based on being larger for social position, will the larger crows on hormones now be acceptable and be called natural, based on their vision of self plus hormones? The answer is no, because there are side affects.
Say I have a vision of self that says I am the best ball player in the world. If this does not pan out in reality, am I still the best player simple because I believe that I am? Say I go one on to because mega rich, I decide to satisfy my vision of self by buying sports teams and politicians so I can change the rules and have yes men, so everyone has to pretend I am the best. Is this now natural?
This social magic trick tries to distract you away from common sense, with empathy for a small child, so you go along, to comfort and boost their self esteem. They are a victim. This makes it harder to deal in logical parallels that show inconsistencies relative to the example in question. Nobody cares for the muscle man in the same way so we can use common sense, first. The muscle man does the say thing as the transgender in term of vision of self.
If I thought I was a bird but in a human body, is this natural or pathological? Say I had the money to buy surgery and robotics, can I now claim to be a bird or would my bird dream still be considered artificial and odd?
In sports, may athletes have the self vision of being bigger, with more muscle mass and more strength. If this does not happen naturally with exercise and diet, many athletes turn to medicine and artificial additives, such as steroids. If they have a dream or vision of self as being larger, but they need to take steroids, to reach there, is this now natural?
We can give growth hormones to cows so they become larger. Say we can convinced people that the cow's self of self is based on being larger for social position, will the larger crows on hormones now be acceptable and be called natural, based on their vision of self plus hormones? The answer is no, because there are side affects.
Say I have a vision of self that says I am the best ball player in the world. If this does not pan out in reality, am I still the best player simple because I believe that I am? Say I go one on to because mega rich, I decide to satisfy my vision of self by buying sports teams and politicians so I can change the rules and have yes men, so everyone has to pretend I am the best. Is this now natural?
This social magic trick tries to distract you away from common sense, with empathy for a small child, so you go along, to comfort and boost their self esteem. They are a victim. This makes it harder to deal in logical parallels that show inconsistencies relative to the example in question. Nobody cares for the muscle man in the same way so we can use common sense, first. The muscle man does the say thing as the transgender in term of vision of self.