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

[Shad]

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

Conversation is over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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




Already did.



Fine



Wrong.

Nope, not all school policy has to come from the U.S. government.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Conversation is over.

It is hard for some people to let themselves learn.

But if you get over your fears I will be here.

 

[Curious George]

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

Are you even sure uou understand what I have said? Do you think the school is not allowed to prohibit the chewing of gum unless there is an EO in place that does so?

Already did.



Fine

Wrong.

Looks like we disagree here too.

 

[Shad]

Are you even sure uou understand what I have said? Do you think the school is not allowed to prohibit the chewing of gum unless there is an EO in place that does so?

I am talking about a government entity compelling speech which runs against a person's religious views. A policy based on an interpretation of a law based on an EO to the DoE. You are losing track of the conversation as you are removing the context involved. More so you never looked at the reasons for prohibiting gum which is sanitation issues thus a public health risk. Toss in damaging property, and required time and funds to remove beyond normal maintenance. Damaging property is illegal ergo a legal reason. Other arguments are gum is a distraction.

What are the arguments for compelling a pronoun use besides external validation?

Tolerance vs validation culture is something to consider.

Looks like we disagree here too.

Yes.

 

[Shad]

It is hard for some people to let themselves learn.

But if you get over your fears I will be here.

Ignored

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignored

Don't worry, I will still point out your ignorant errors.

 

[Curious George]

I am talking about a government entity compelling speech which runs against a person's religious views. A policy based on an interpretation of a law based on an EO to the DoE. You are losing track of the conversation as you are removing the context involved. More so you never looked at the reasons for prohibiting gun which is sanitation issues thus a public health risk.

Tolerance vs validation culture. TG being the later due to the obvious insecurities at play.

I am not worried about Tolerance or Validation culture. I am strictly speaking about administrative agency authority and the scope and authority of a school board. What you are saying literally makes no sense.

The school board has the power to make policies. None of those policies contradict or rum counter to any current EO. None of those policies are unconstitutional or run counter to any legal precedent.

Were there no policy prohibitive of the teachers behavior and no express contractual obligation prohibitive of the teachers behavior, the teacher would still have an enormous, likely insurmountable, uphill battle based on professional standards alone.

We are bordering on absurd. You want to toss out professional standards, believe that the school did not contract that a teacher needs to follow admimistrative direction, and believe that a policy is void because Trump revoked an Obama administration Executive Order.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am talking about a government entity compelling speech which runs against a person's religious views. A policy based on an interpretation of a law based on an EO to the DoE. You are losing track of the conversation as you are removing the context involved. More so you never looked at the reasons for prohibiting gum which is sanitation issues thus a public health risk. Toss in damaging property, and required time and funds to remove beyond normal maintenance. Damaging property is illegal ergo a legal reason. Other arguments are gum is a distraction.

What are the arguments for compelling a pronoun use besides external validation?

Tolerance vs validation culture is something to consider.



Yes.

A teacher may hold religious views. He simply may not espouse them during school hours.

A flattard would still have to teach that the world is a globe in a geometry class. Your understanding of the rights of the religious is rather lacking.

 

[Shad]

I am not worried about Tolerance or Validation culture. I am strictly speaking about administrative agency authority and the scope and authority of a school board. What you are saying literally makes no sense.

Government entities are bound by law regarding policy which can and can not be implemented far beyond the scope of a private company. A reason is required and it must be a legal one. Mandated government speech has lost repeatedly in court.

The school board has the power to make policies.

To create legal policy.

None of those policies contradict or rum counter to any current EO.

Wrong as the policy is based on an previous EO interpretation of Title 9. Betsy, DoE, and Sessions, AG, have/had been undoing Obama's title 9 for a year.

None of those policies are unconstitutional or run counter to any legal precedent.

Interpretation of title 9 is not done at the school board level but DoE.

Were there no policy prohibitive of the teachers behavior and no express contractual obligation prohibitive of the teachers behavior, the teacher would still have an enormous, likely insurmountable, uphill battle based on professional standards alone.

I disagree. There is no evidence the teacher is grading the student better/worse. There is no evidence the teacher is going out of their way to make the student an example. The teacher is using the new name. I see no professional issues. I see an ideological battle with religious elements based solely on interpretation of basis. If you couldn't tell I reject such interpretive laws as one can make twist a law in many ways. Also it gives a reason for the legislative branch to pass it's own duties to the judicial. Ergo a reason why SCOTUS is so political charged

We are bordering on absurd. You want to toss out professional standards, believe that the school did not contract that a teacher needs to follow admimistrative direction, and believe that a policy is void because Trump revoked an Obama administration Executive Order.

I disagree regarding what you see as professional standards. However this is merely part of a large disagreement with how the US public system has been run since the 90s.

The policy is based on title 9. The interpretation has changed thus the grounding is null. The school can change to city and state laws thus update it's policy. Laws which are specific not interpretations of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Government entities are bound by law regarding policy which can and can not be implemented far beyond the scope of a private company. A reason is required and it must be a legal one. Mandated government speech has lost repeatedly in court.



To create legal policy.



Wrong as the policy is based on an previous EO interpretation of Title 9. Betsy, DoE, and Sessions, AG, have/had been undoing Obama's title 9 for a year.



Interpretation of title 9 is not done at the school board level but DoE.



I disagree. There is no evidence the teacher is grading the student better/worse. There is no evidence the teacher is going out of their way to make the student an example. The teacher is using the new name. I see no professional issues. I see an ideological battle with religious elements based solely on interpretation of basis. If you couldn't tell I reject such interpretive laws as one can make twist a law in many ways. Also it gives a reason for the legislative branch to pass it's own duties to the judicial. Ergo a reason why SCOTUS is so political charged



I disagree regarding what you see as professional standards. However this is merely part of a large disagreement with how the US public system has been run since the 90s.

The policy is based on title 9. The interpretation has changed thus the grounding is null. The school can change to city and state laws thus update it's policy. Laws which are specific not interpretations of.

You made that claim of "mandated speech" but you never supported it. I asked for examples but you gave none. When I went looking I only found cases to the contrary.

Do you have anything more than empty claims?

So far the only link that I can remember of yours was a site that did not support your claim.

 

[Curious George]

Government entities are bound by law regarding policy which can and can not be implemented far beyond the scope of a private company.

Let's breakdown that sentence. Gov't agencies are bound by law regarding policy. I agree.

"policy which can and can not be implemented far beyond the scope of a private company."

This makes no sense; it is self contradictory on its face and requires further elaboration.

A reason is required and it must be a legal one.

Huh? Notice is required. I suppose a reason is required but that reason could be, "we think it would be nice for students."

Mandated government speech has lost repeatedly in court.

You believe there is precedent that prohibits the regulation of a teacher's speech during instructional time and related to the teaching content?

To create legal policy.

To create policies which guide and direct education in the district.

Wrong as the policy is based on an previous EO interpretation of Title 9. Betsy, DoE, and Sessions, AG, have/had been undoing Obama's title 9 for a year.

Again, that doesn't matter.

Interpretation of title 9 is not done at the school board level but DoE.

No but community standards are put in place at the school board level.

I disagree. There is no evidence the teacher is grading the student better/worse. There is no evidence the teacher is going out of their way to make the student an example. The teacher is using the new name. I see no professional issues. I see a ideological battle with religious elements.

The teacher is treating this child different than other children. And doing so, contrary to administrative direction to do otherwise.

I disagree regarding what you see as professional standards. However this is merely part of a large disagreement with how the US public system has been run since the 90s.

You disagree that it is a professional standard to follow admimistrative direction regarding the curriculum?

The policy is based on title 9. The interpretation has changed thus the grounding is null. The school can change to city and state laws thus update it's policy. Laws which are specific not interpretations of.

The school can change their policy bit they do not need to change their policy. This is important to understand.

 

[Shad]

Let's breakdown that sentence. Gov't agencies are bound by law regarding policy. I agree.

"policy which can and can not be implemented far beyond the scope of a private company."

This makes no sense; it is self contradictory on its face and requires further elaboration.

A corporation can endorse a religion when the Fed can not. A corporation can terminate a person based on politician views, the government can not.

Huh? Notice is required. I suppose a reason is required but that reason could be, "we think it would be nice for students."

I am not convinced by this argument. There are other ways of being nice without requiring one to violate their religious views. YEC Christians are not required to denounce creationism while teaching evolution.

You believe there is precedent that prohibits the regulation of a teacher's speech during instructional time and related to the teaching content?

As per the JW example mandated speech against a religious view has lost repeatedly.

To create policies which guide and direct education in the district.

Which must be legal.

Again, that doesn't matter.

Yes it does as the school is part of the DoE.

No but community standards are put in place at the school board level.

Irrelevant as it is a government entity. A number if community's held a standard that creationism should be taught. They lost and continue to lose, in courts.

The teacher is treating this child different than other children.

No. The teacher addresses students by their names and made one mistake. Besides all students are treated differently anyways Smart vs dumb. Passing vs failing. Advanced vs held back. Fast vs slow.

And doing so, contrary to administrative direction to do otherwise.

Which just establishes the hypocrisy of the admins and an agenda.

You disagree that it is a professional standard to follow admimistrative direction regarding the curriculum?

Use of a pronoun is not curriculum

The school can change their policy bit they do not need to change their policy. This is important to understand.

Depends if this teacher has a case in court. I assume one of those Freedom or Religion defense legal leagues or firms (whatever) has reached out to the teacher by now.

 

[Curious George]

A corporation can endorse a religion when the Fed can not. A corporation can terminate a person based on politician views, the government can not.

Ok so you are just saying that government agencies sometimes face more restrictions than private employers. What you were trying to say does not match what you said.

I am not convinced by this argument. There are other ways of being nice without requiring one to violate their religious views. YEC Christians are not required to denounce creationism while teaching evolution.

You don't need to be convinced. I am letting you know that that is all the reason that is required. While certain reasons may be challenged, I think that you will find administrative regulation of teacher behavior is not generally going to be one.

As per the JW example mandated speech against a religious view has lost repeatedly.

I am happy to walk you through any precedent and explain why it is not applicable here.

Which must be legal.

Are you under the mistaken impression that a district cannot protect against discrimination by gender identity unless there is a EO in place? Their policy is not illegal.

Yes it does as the school is part of the DoE.

No it does not, because the EO or the revocation of Obamas EO does not prohibit the policy.

Irrelevant as it is a government entity. A number if community's held a standard that creationism should be taught. They lost and continue to lose, in courts.

And that is unconstitutional. This policy is not.

No. The teacher addresses students by their names and made one mistake. Besides all students are treated differently anyways Smart vs dumb. Passing vs failing. Advanced vs held back. Fast vs slow.

I am not under the impression tjat the teacher tried to forgo all pronouns. My understanding is that the teacher just tried to not use pronouns for a particular student. Is this incorrect?

Which just establishes the hypocrisy of the admins and an agenda.

The hypocrisy of the admins agenda? What does that even mean?

Use of a pronoun is not curriculum

How teacher address students is pedagogy. Pedagogy used in a curriculum is indeed part of that curriculum.

Depends if this teacher has a case in court. I assume one of those Freedom or Religion defense legal leagues or firms (whatever) has reached out to the teacher by now.

You are missing the point. One administration EO revoking another administration EO does not necessarily mean all policies that relate to the previous administration EO need to be changed.

 

[Shad]

Ok so you are just saying that government agencies sometimes face more restrictions than private employers. What you were trying to say does not match what you said.

No it matches. I just provided examples. The key one being compelled speech.

You don't need to be convinced. I am letting you know that that is all the reason that is required. While certain reasons may be challenged, I think that you will find administrative regulation of teacher behavior is not generally going to be one.

No you think it is a valid reason without question nor argument, nothing more. Compelling speech against a religious belief

I am happy to walk you through any precedent and explain why it is not applicable here.

Go for it. Show me the precedent in which government can force compelled speech against a religious view. You wont find one which runs afoul of 1a and 5a or has been overturned by the precedent I brought up

Are you under the mistaken impression that a district cannot protect against discrimination by gender identity unless there is a EO in place? Their policy is not illegal.

I already stated multiple times there could be a city or state statute at play. So far no one one has cited anything current.

It is illegal as it compels speech and the revoked interpretations.

No it does not, because the EO or the revocation of Obamas EO does not prohibit the policy.

Yes it did as the EO revoked the very interpretation of title 9.

And that is unconstitutional. This policy is not.

The policy is for two reasons stated above. More so my point knocked your premise down of "community standards" merely by changing the community.

I am not under the impression tjat the teacher tried to forgo all pronouns. My understanding is that the teacher just tried to not use pronouns for a particular student. Is this incorrect?

The requested pronoun of him was rejected. First person pronouns such as your would be used, I assume, due to normal language use.

The hypocrisy of the admins agenda? What does that even mean?

Specifically compelling speech due to a tiny minority for no educational purposes and termination if one can not be forced to violated their religion is an agenda.

How teacher address students is pedagogy.

Students are not address used in-direct pronouns. There is no evidence a non-use of a pronoun has impacted the student's education. It only impacts the students insecurities due to a lack of validation which is a person problem.

Pedagogy used in a curriculum is indeed part of that curriculum.

So? You have not linked a lack of pronoun use with anything yet.

You are missing the point. One administration EO revoking another administration EO does not necessarily mean all policies that relate to the previous administration EO need to be changed.

For the DoE facilities it does as the interpretation is one created by the EO. School boards can not interpret law.

 

[Curious George]

No it matches. I just provided examples. The key one being compelled speech.

Um you are discussing the students beimg forced to salute the flag. This is foremost distinguishable by the rights at issue:

The freedom asserted by these appellees does not bring them into collision with rights asserted by any other individual. It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin. But the refusal of these persons to participate in the ceremony does not interfere with or deny rights of others to do so. Nor is there any question in this case that their behavior is peaceable and orderly. The sole conflict is between authority and rights of the individual.​

See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette

​

Next it is distinguishable by the fact that attendance is not optional for students

Without compelled attendance,

"those who take advantage of its opportunities may not, on ground of conscience, refuse compliance with such conditions"​

Id.

No you think it is a valid reason without question nor argument, nothing more. Compelling speech against a religious belief.

No, i dont think it constitutes compelling speech against religious belief. And, while reasons do matter, this is not a particular instance where you are likely to find a reason that does.

Go for it. Show me the precedent in which government can force compelled speech against a religious view. You wont find one which runs afoul of 1a and 5a or has been overturned by the precedent I brought up

Lol, I rarely bother to go fetch sources for people. If you are curious about a case, I will help you understand it. If you are not curious then there is no point. If you really want to understand how you are wrong, then perhaps we can cross that bridge. But typically this is going to amount to me chasing down cases and quotes for someone to say nuh-uh, without understanding.

I already stated multiple times there could be a city or state statute at play. So far no one one has cited anything current.

I know of none, nor have I bothered to check. I did not even know the school board had a policy.

It is illegal as it compels speech and the revoked interpretations.

If it is illegal then it was illegal regardless of the executive orders the revoked interpretations have nothing to do with that fact. If it was not illegal, then taking away the EO does not automatically void any policy the school board created.

Yes it did as the EO revoked the very interpretation of title 9.

That doesn't matter. If the school board created a separate policy, then that policy stands as intended by the school board.

The policy is for two reasons stated above. More so my point knocked your premise down of "community standards" merely by changing the community.

Not sure about your point here. The policy is not unconstitutional and the community standards are not "knocked down."

The requested pronoun of him was rejected. First person pronouns such as your would be used, I assume, due to normal language use.

We are not discussing you and your. I asked if the teacher refused to use him and her for all students or just students that the teacher assumes are transgender. If it is the latter that is discrimination.

Specifically compelling speech due to a tiny minority for no educational purposes and termination if one can not be forced to violated their religion is an agenda.

I would say that devaluation and discrimination towards children does impact education so the direction/policy would be for educational purpose. Still do not see the hypocrisy though.

Students are not address used in-direct pronouns. There is no evidence a non-use of a pronoun has impacted the student's education. It only impacts the students insecurities due to a lack of validation which is a person problem.

They do not need to prove that it impacts the kids education. Any court would give deference for an educational body like a school board to make that decision. It would be on the teacher to prove that it did not impact the kids education. And good luck proving that in court.

So? You have not linked a lack of pronoun use with anything yet.

How a teacher refers to children is part of pedagogy.

For the DoE facilities it does as the interpretation is one created by the EO. School boards can not interpret law.

You seem confused because you keep saying this like it matters.

School boards can make policies. The policy in question does not conflict with any law.

 

[Shad]

Um you are discussing the students beimg forced to salute the flag. This is foremost distinguishable by the rights at issue:

The freedom asserted by these appellees does not bring them into collision with rights asserted by any other individual. It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin. But the refusal of these persons to participate in the ceremony does not interfere with or deny rights of others to do so. Nor is there any question in this case that their behavior is peaceable and orderly. The sole conflict is between authority and rights of the individual.​

See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette

Applicable to the teacher as the teacher is an individual. Government can not order someone to violate their religion. Also see JW and the draft or religious exempts for the military.

​

Next it is distinguishable by the fact that attendance is not optional for students

Again applicable as pronoun use is not optional and a violation of 1A

No, i dont think it constitutes compelling speech against religious belief.

Wrong. The teacher is clearly referencing their faith regardless if you think they are denying science. Creationist are not required denounce their view while teaching evolution.

And, while reasons do matter, this is not a particular instance where you are likely to find a reason that does.

1A is involved here.

Lol, I rarely bother to go fetch sources for people. If you are curious about a case, I will help you understand it. If you are not curious then there is no point. If you really want to understand how you are wrong, then perhaps we can cross that bridge. But typically this is going to amount to me chasing down cases and quotes for someone to say nuh-uh, without understanding.

If you tell me about the case you will end up referencing it anyways. I see no issue beside the obvious reluctance to see someone disagree with your opinion.

I know of none, nor have I bothered to check. I did not even know the school board had a policy.

So you were arguing for something that you didn't know about nor read? This merely demonstrated your authoritarian tendencies of accepting what an authority tells you without question then arguing a point you never informed yourself about. Hilarious

If it is illegal then it was illegal regardless of the executive orders the revoked interpretations have nothing to do with that fact. If it was not illegal, then taking away the EO does not automatically void any policy the school board created.

School boards do not have the power to interpret law, that is an illegal power thus makes the policy illegal as the federal grounding no longer exists. If there is a city or state statute involved that is something to discuss.

That doesn't matter. If the school board created a separate policy, then that policy stands as intended by the school board.

Legality matters

Not sure about your point here. The policy is not unconstitutional and the community standards are not "knocked down."

Wrong. You tried to use "community standards" to establish a board can do X as it is favored by the community, otherwise it wouldn't be a standard nor represent the community. I pointed out a standard which does exist in communities which was tossed out due to be illegal and/or unconstitutional. Your premise is thus point is unsound thus knocked down.

We are not discussing you and your. I asked if the teacher refused to use him and her for all students or just students that the teacher assumes are transgender. If it is the latter that is discrimination.

Nope. Declining to use a word is not discrimination.

I would say that devaluation and discrimination towards children does impact education so the direction/policy would be for educational purpose. Still do not see the hypocrisy though.

The person is not devalued by a lack of validation over a pronoun. All it does is set off their own insecurities. By coddling people against the reality of their life now and in the future a child is being setup for problems.

They do not need to prove that it impacts the kids education. Any court would give deference for an educational body like a school board to make that decision. It would be on the teacher to prove that it did not impact the kids education. And good luck proving that in court.

All you are doing is sliding into authoritarianism again. "Do what you are told!" Yet you forget the DoE has changed policy multiple times from religion in schools, segregation, etc, regardless of what the board does or wants.

How a teacher refers to children is part of pedagogy.

By name which is completely acceptable.

You seem confused because you keep saying this like it matters.

It matters as the public school system is part of government and subject to the authority of the DoE and POTUS.

School boards can make policies. The policy in question does not conflict with any law.

It is in conflict with 1a. Also there is no law covering TG and pronouns.

 

[Curious George]

Applicable to the teacher as the teacher is an individual. Government can not order someone to violate their religion. Also see JW and the draft or religious exempts for the military.

Not applicable to the teacher. And re the draft, I would agree that an argument might be present if the teacher was required by law to serve in that position

Again applicable as pronoun use is not optional and a violation of 1A

No, but employment is.

Wrong. The teacher is clearly referencing their faith regardless if you think they are denying science. Creationist are not required denounce their view while teaching evolution.

Firstly, i have never questioned whether the teacher is referencing their faith. I do question whether pronoun use is an honestly held religious belief, but that is neither here nor their at this moment.

I am saying that the school is not dpimg anything that amounts to a violation of the teachers rights. This has nothing to do with denying science.

1A is involved here.

Nope.

If you tell me about the case you will end up referencing it anyways. I see no issue beside the obvious reluctance to see someone disagree with your opinion.

Huh? I am just offering to explain how particular cases, about which you are curious, are distinguished. I see no reason to pull a whole bunch of cases and quote them to give an argument if it will serve no purpose. If there is a particular fact on which our argument will turn, I might dig out the quote for you.

So you were arguing for something that you didn't know about nor read? This merely demonstrated your authoritarian tendencies of accepting what an authority tells you without question then arguing a point you never informed yourself about. Hilarious

I assumed you were honest. I have read all of the cases that I have discussed and many more im addition. Are you trying to attack my credibility here? If so, I hope it is terribly obvious to at least yourself that you have not addressed my actual argument.

School boards do not have the power to interpret law, that is an illegal power thus makes the policy illegal as the federal grounding no longer exists. If there is a city or state statute involved that is something to discuss.

I have explained to you what the school board does. I have explaimed that the school board was within its authority to make a policy regarding instruction. You have in no way challenged that.

Next I have explained that a policy is not void unless it is contrary to law. The revocation of an EO did not make this policy contrary to law. If this policy is contrary to law, then it always was.

Legality matters

Yet the policy is not illegal

Wrong. You tried to use "community standards" to establish a board can do X as it is favored by the community, otherwise it wouldn't be a standard nor represent the community. I pointed out a standard which does exist in communities which was tossed out due to be illegal and/or unconstitutional. Your premise is thus point is unsound thus knocked down.

I agree that a policy, if unconstitutional, can be invalidated. I habe never said otherwise. A policies constitutionality does not turn om the presence or lack pf presence of an EO.

Nope. Declining to use a word is not discrimination.

Treating one child different than all others based on a specific trait of that child does count as discrimination.

The person is not devalued by a lack of validation over a pronoun. All it does is set off their own insecurities. By coddling people against the reality of their life now and in the future a child is being setup for problems.

I understand you have that opinion. But your opinion is not relevant here. The school boards and the administrators opinions are relevant. Even if they are incorrect the deference goes to them as they are both professionals and employed to make these types of decisions.

All you are doing is sliding into authoritarianism again. "Do what you are told!" Yet you forget the DoE has changed policy multiple times from religion in schools, segregation, etc, regardless of what the board does or wants.

This has nothing to do with doing as one is told. This has everything to do with the people involved and their ability to choose otherwise.

By name which is completely acceptable.

Not when all students are not referred to by name.

It matters as the public school system is part of government and subject to the authority of the DoE and POTUS.

Do you believe their is a policy by the DoE that states no school can make a policy respecting gender identity?

It is in conflict with 1a. Also there is no law covering TG and pronouns.

It is not in conflict with 1a. Whether there is a law or not would not matter if it was in conflict with 1a. And there is no law preventing such a policy. Since no law prevents the policy, the school is free to enact it.

 

[Shad]

Not applicable to the teacher. And re the draft, I would agree that an argument might be present if the teacher was required by law to serve in that position

Nope as it was 1A violation.

No, but employment is.

Nope as it was 1A violation.

Firstly, i have never questioned whether the teacher is referencing their faith.

The teacher in question did which becomes an 1A issue.

I do question whether pronoun use is an honestly held religious belief, but that is neither here nor their at this moment.

It is relevant case at hand. The teacher holds the whole "made you male and female" view.

I am saying that the school is not dpimg anything that amounts to a violation of the teachers rights. This has nothing to do with denying science.

Wrong. It is a 1A violation.

Nope.

Wrong as the teacher referenced religion.

Huh? I am just offering to explain how particular cases, about which you are curious, are distinguished. I see no reason to pull a whole bunch of cases and quote them to give an argument if it will serve no purpose. If there is a particular fact on which our argument will turn, I might dig out the quote for you.

So? You are not making your argument. You merely want to force your opinion of my argument on to me. Ergo I declined. More so I have rejected your opinion. Instead I want you to argue your case in which government can compel speech in violation of a one's religious view.

I assumed you were honest.

You are confused. That was a reference to you admitting to not knowing the school policy before arguing about this topic. You merely parroted what the admin said instead of informing yourself.

I have read all of the cases that I have discussed and many more im addition. Are you trying to attack my credibility here?
If so, I hope it is terribly obvious to at least yourself that you have not addressed my actual argument.

No, see the above.

I have explained to you what the school board does.

Does vs can legal do.

I have explaimed that the school board was within its authority to make a policy regarding instruction. You have in no way challenged that.

Use of pronouns has nothing to do with instructions.

Next I have explained that a policy is not void unless it is contrary to law.

Pronoun use is not covered by law, 1a violation and compelled speech. 3 violations.

The revocation of an EO did not make this policy contrary to law.

Yes it did as pronoun use is not a law, is a 1A violation and compelled speech.

If this policy is contrary to law, then it always was.

Which it is.

Yet the policy is not illegal

Yes it is as per the above

I agree that a policy, if unconstitutional, can be invalidated. I habe never said otherwise. A policies constitutionality does not turn om the presence or lack pf presence of an EO.

The EO removed the unconstitutional interpretation, 1A violation and compelled speech by government violation

Treating one child different than all others based on a specific trait of that child does count as discrimination.

Lack of a pronoun use is not discrimination.

I understand you have that opinion. But your opinion is not relevant here.

Look up the word discussion. If you do not care about my opinion stop responding. Your point is nonsense.

The school boards and the administrators opinions are relevant.

Wrong. The legality is what matters.

Even if they are incorrect the deference goes to them as they are both professionals and employed to make these types of decisions.


This has nothing to do with doing as one is told. This has everything to do with the people involved and their ability to choose otherwise.

Merely because you cave to authority without question does not equate an obligation upon me. Next!

Not when all students are not referred to by name.

All students are referred to by name repeatedly. Did the teacher call you number 5 or something? Or hey you with X hair colour?

Do you believe their is a policy by the DoE that states no school can make a policy respecting gender identity?

No, the constitution limits which is valid policy or not. The DoE has merely revoked an interpretation

It is not in conflict with 1a.

Yes it is as per the teacher's statement.

Whether there is a law or not would not matter if it was in conflict with 1a.

Wrong

And there is no law preventing such a policy. Since no law prevents the policy, the school is free to enact it.

It is called 1A. Wrong again.

 

[Curious George]

Nope as it was 1A violation.





Nope as it was 1A violation.




The teacher in question did which becomes an 1A issue....

Wrong. It is a 1A violation...

Yes it did as pronoun use is not a law, is a 1A violation and compelled speech...

The EO removed the unconstitutional interpretation, 1A violation and compelled speech by government violation...

It is called 1A. Wrong again.

Pronoun use is not covered by law, 1a violation and compelled speech. 3 violations

Grouped all of these together to point out that no, there is no constitutional violation.

It is relevant case at hand. The teacher holds the whole "made you male and female" view.

The teacher can continue to hold that view. Unless they think that it is a sincerely held religious belief that use of a pronoun makes one a male or a female.


.

Wrong as the teacher referenced religion.

Ome can reference religion anytime they want, that doesn't make something a constitutional issue.

So? You are not making your argument. You merely want to force your opinion of my argument on to me. Ergo I declined. More so I have rejected your opinion. Instead I want you to argue your case in which government can compel speech in violation of a one's religious view.

I am not forcing my opinion on you. I am merely offering to correct your misunderstanding.

You are confused. That was a reference to you admitting to not knowing the school policy before arguing about this topic. You merely parroted what the admin said instead of informing yourself.

No, I suggested that the school qould be within their rigjts to terminate employment even without a specific policy, i explained this earlier.

Does vs can legal do.

They jave done nothing illegal

Use of pronouns has nothing to do with instructions.

Already explained.

Lack of a pronoun use is not discrimination.

Already explained

Look up the word discussion. If you do not care about my opinion stop responding. Your point is nonsense.

You musunderstand. It is not that I do not care about your opinion. It is that your specific opinion that:

The person is not devalued by a lack of validation over a pronoun. All it does is set off their own insecurities. By coddling people against the reality of their life now and in the future a child is being setup for problems.

Is irrelevant. My opinion on this is irrelevant. The school board was elected and the admin were hired to make these decisions. They have the authority to decide whether they think a specific type of instruction devalues the student. That is in part their job. Their opinions matter here.

Wrong. The legality is what matters.

Not illegal

Merely because you cave to authority without question does not equate an obligation upon me. Next!

I am sorry you feel that way.

All students are referred to by name repeatedly. Did the teacher call you number 5 or something? Or hey you with X hair colour?

No, but if the teacher referred to me and only me with my name and went put of their way to not use he or him, then I, and others, would likely take notice.

No, the constitution limits which is valid policy or not. The DoE has merely revoked an interpretation

Ok, so if there is no restriction, then a school board can make a policy as long as that policy is not unconstitutional. This means your argument hangs solely on the constitutionality and the EOs have nothing to do with the matter.

I explained why the cases you have used to conclude unconstitutionality are not fitting. So we should ve in agreement.

Yes it is as per the teacher's statement.

The teacher sayimg somethimg does not make it so.[/QUOTE]