Teacher: Christian faith prohibits treating transgendered students with respect and dignity

[Shad]

So again, are you saying that unless there's a specific provision in the contract, the school has no authority to manage how their teachers treat students?

Treatment does not include compelled speech.

Dodge noted.

Wrong. Try again son

Loaded question - Wikipedia

And when I attribute that viewpoint to you, you deny it.

I denied nothing. You just presented a loaded question which I dismissed.

My point is contracts state obligations the employee and employer. Compelled speech from government has been shot down by SCOTUS; see JW and pledge of allegiance. Ergo it is not a legal obligation

You are indeed saying that unless something is specifically spelled out in a contract, the employer is powerless to do anything about it.

Contract and legal, yes. They can still take action and have a court battle later.

So where's your citation for this?

You do not know what a contract is?

Contract Obligations | LegalMatch Law Library

Explain how you can accuse the school of being in violation of contract law, if you have no idea what's in the teacher's contract.

Government can not compelled speech. Title 9 definitions from Obama's terms has been revoked.

Your own argument can twist against you as you do not have the contract either. Self refuting point.

Citation please.

See above. Maybe look up what a contract is.

I'm absolutely positive that there's not one thing in my contract about not sending crazy emails to our partners.

Irrelevant. You are using work time for personal time thus are in violation of your contract as you are not actually working. Try again

Nope. The emails I send are to our partners and contain work-related items, thus they are not "personal", nor were they written on personal time.

Then your example was false and dishonest. You changed it ad hoc. Try again.

At this point you need to do two things. First, cite something to support your assertion that unless something is specifically spelled out in a contract, the employer is powerless to do anything about it.

Already did.

Second, explain how you can accuse the school of being in violation of contract law, if you have no idea what's in the teacher's contract.

Government can not compel speech and title 9 was revoked (Obama's EO) was revoked.

 

[Shad]

That's hilarious.

"No employer can force you to say anything. That would be compelled speech!!"

Telemarketers give their employees scripts that they must read.

"That's just procedure!"​

Wrong. You are conflating procedure as part of the job with an admin (government official) compelling speech by use of a pronoun. Now show the obligation the teacher has to use a pronoun. I will wait.

 

[Curious George]

It renders your point moot.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Shad]

I took you off of ignore because of criteria #3, but I'm realizing it's a mistake. I have no idea what motivates you to misrepresent the law

What law? Name it?

I have no confidence that you could actually articulate a rational defense of your position if you tried.

Already have.

so back on ignore you go. You're not worth any of my mental energy.

You have no argument. Your energy has been wasted. You make a post then run away via ignore from any counter point. Cowardly hit and run.

 

[Shad]

No, it doesn't.

Yet that is what revoking does. Just like the Obama mandate was revoked. You know what revoked means right?

 

[Curious George]

Yet that is what revoking does. Just like the Obama mandate was revoked. You know what revoked means right?

I know what revoking means. My poimt is not debatable and no amount of revoking will make it so. If the school district created a policy in response to an EO, then the school district would need to get rid of that policy. A president revoking an EO does nothing to an existing policy created by a school.

I think you are not understanding how the government structure, administrative law, and schools work.

 

[Shad]

I know what revoking means. My poimt is not debatable and no amount of revoking will make it so. If the school district created a policy in response to an EO, then the school district would need to get rid of that policy. A president revoking an EO does nothing to an existing policy created by a school.

Your point isn't debatable as it has no merit and is wrong. There is no point is debating a point in error. Try again.

Actually it does as the board is part of the DoE which uses Title 9 as the basis of it's policy which in turn is under the executive branch. School boards have zero power to interpret law. Public schools are not private entities but government services. See JW and the pledge of allegiance. A school policy mandating the pledge getting shot down by SCOTUS.

I think you are not understanding how the government structure, administrative law, and schools work.

Right.... That is why I am the one point out laws involved while you think a government public school's board has power to interpret law. Hilarious.

 

[Curious George]

Your point isn't debatable as it has no merit and wrong. There is no point is debating a point in error. Try again.

Actually it does as the board is part of the DoE which uses Title 9 as the basis of it's policy which in turn is under the executive branch. School boards have zero power to interpret law.



Right.... That is why I am the one point out laws involved while you think a government public school's board has power to interpret law. Hilarious.

No the board has the power to create policy. How are you not understanding the issue.

I think you are misusing moot.

 

[Shad]

No the board has the power to create policy. How are you not understanding the issue.

The policy is based on title 9 which is a law. The school has no power nor authority to interpret title 9.

I think you are misusing moot.

No I am using the 2nd definition "of little or no practical value"

 

[Curious George]

The policy is based on title 9 which is a law. The school has no power nor authority to interpret title 9.

Yeah, still not relevant. If a board makes a policy then that policy would need to be changed. This is not done by revoking a previous executive order that encouraged us to make said policy.

No I am using the 2nd definition "of little or no practical value"

That doesn't really make sense here either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you listened by evident of your post.



Wrong. You conflated respect with courtesy and manners. Try again.

Nope, I skipped over most of it. All you had were the same old refuted arguments.

You simply can't learn when it comes to this topic. I wonder why.

 

[Shad]

Yeah, still not relevant. If a board makes a policy then that policy would need to be changed. This is not done by revoking a previous executive order that encouraged us to make said policy.

The policy is based on an interpretation of a law which is not longer used. The policy specifically about TG is null.

That doesn't really make sense here either.

It does. Your point has no value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, still not relevant. If a board makes a policy then that policy would need to be changed. This is not done by revoking a previous executive order that encouraged us to make said policy.



That doesn't really make sense here either.

it is a very strange interpretation to say the least. Obama ordered people not to act like asses when it came to this sort of discrimination. For some reason he seems to think that the presidential rescission makes it okay for everyone to be an ***, even if it is written as a clear and legal policy that one cannot act in such a manner and expect a job.

Some places of employment do not need the president to tell them to act properly.

 

[Shad]

Nope, I skipped over most of it. All you had were the same old refuted arguments.

You simply can't learn when it comes to this topic. I wonder why.

Our conversation is done then. I disagree with you. You disagree with me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The policy is based on an interpretation of a law which is not longer used. The policy specifically about TG is null.





It does. Your point has no value.

Wrong again

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our conversation is done then. I disagree with you. You disagree with me.

Yes, but only because you refuse to learn. Have you considered reasoning logically?

 

[Shad]

Yes, but only because you refuse to learn. Have you considered reasoning logically?

Can't let the bone go I see.

 

[Curious George]

The policy is based on an interpretation of a law which is not longer used. The policy specifically about TG is null.

That is not how policy is made or works.

It does. Your point has no value.

You are welcome to provide the quotes and the definition and explain. Otherwise we are just going to continue to disagree. Either you did not understand my point or you are using the word wrong. Those are the only possible explanations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't let the bone go I see.

I am willing to help you, it is a slow day.

 

[Shad]

That is not how policy is made or works.

Wrong. It is how government policy works as the school is part of government. Try again.

You are welcome to provide the quotes and the definition and explain.

Already did.

Otherwise we are just going to continue to disagree.

Fine

Either you did not understand my point or you are using the word wrong. Those are the only possible explanations.

Wrong.