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

[Shad]

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

1a violation

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.

Nope. It is a view of reality thus the use of a pronoun would be a lie. Also it a mandated change to a language by government which has no authority to do so. Ergo Newspeak.

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

The compelled speech is the violation due the religious belief. No one can be forced by government to say anything against their religious view.

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

Which is your opinion that I need you to understand something. I don't.

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

Wrongful termination law

They jave done nothing illegal

1A

Already explained.

Already explained

And rejected. Next

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

I forgot a "not "in there. My bad.

Not illegal

1A violation

I am sorry you feel that way.

K.

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.

It would be unnoticeable as it was until the slip up.

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.

Wrong as the EO revoked an unconstitutional interpretation and violated the 1A.

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

Nope as you ignored the government compelling speech in violation of the 1A factor in each case willingly. You have no point.

The teacher sayimg somethimg does not make it so.

Not an argument. Government has zero power to determine the sincerity of nor truth of a religious view. More evidence of your authoritarian thought patterns.

 

[Jose Fly]

There was no discrimination.

Sorry, but your say-so is meaningless.

Treatment does not include compelled speech.

Um....what? How a teacher speaks to students falls within the category of "treatment". Sheesh.

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

The JW case was about compelled student speech (i.e., JW students cannot be forced to recite the pledge). I'd say "nice try", but.....nah.

You do not know what a contract is?

Contract Obligations | LegalMatch Law Library

Are you serious? Show where in that link it says anything resembling "if something is not specifically in a contract an employer is powerless to do anything about it".

Government can not compelled speech.

They do all the time. Specific to this context, teachers are "compelled" to teach material as specified in the state standards, and teachers cannot teach contrary to it. For example, a science teacher at a public school who believes the Bible depicts a flat earth must still teach a spherical earth and cannot teach a flat earth.

You didn't know that?

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

Geez dude, try and keep up. You accused the school of being in violation of contract law, even though you had no idea what was in the teacher's contract. I made no such accusation at all.

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

Oh for the love of.....would you please keep up? The scenario is....I'm at work, writing work-related emails to my employer's business partners, and in the midst of those emails I start going off about purple monkey dragons on Mars. According to you, since there's nothing specifically about that in my contract, my employer is powerless to do anything. Now....where's your citation for that assertion? The link above provides zero support for it.

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

Nope. You're just struggling to keep up.

You are conflating procedure as part of the job with an admin (government official) compelling speech by use of a pronoun.

You can't be serious. In both cases an employer is telling an employee "This is what you must say". Calling one "compelled speech" and the other "procedure" is nothing but a laughable dodge on your part.

Now show the obligation the teacher has to use a pronoun.

He was told to do so (multiple times) by his supervisor, which falls within the district's policies of non-discrimination on the basis of gender, and not creating a hostile environment for students.

 

[Curious George]

1a violation

Already explained.

Nope. It is a view of reality thus the use of a pronoun would be a lie. Also it a mandated change to a language by government which has no authority to do so. Ergo Newspeak.

How is it a lie?

The compelled speech is the violation due the religious belief. No one can be forced by government to say anything against their religious view.

And no one is being forced to do so.

Which is your opinion that I need you to understand something. I don't.

You do not seem to understand that those cases do not mean wjat you think those cases mean.

Wrongful termination law

Except they were not terminating the teacher because of his religion. They were terminating the teacher because of his refusal to follow procedure. While the teacher asserts that this refusal was due to religious belief, a termination is still appropriate if an accomodation wpuld be too burdensome.

1A




And rejected. Next

Nope

I forgot a "not "in there. My bad.

That wasn't a problem.

1A violation

Or not

It would be unnoticeable as it was until the slip up.

Speculation

Wrong as the EO revoked an unconstitutional interpretation and violated the 1A.

Agaim EO doesn't matter.

Nope as you ignored the government compelling speech in violation of the 1A factor in each case willingly. You have no point.

Government compelling speech is not relevant when a person chooses to be there and avail themselves of the benefits of where the speech is compelled.

Not an argument. Government has zero power to determine the sincerity of nor truth of a religious view. More evidence of your authoritarian thought patterns.

This is not true. The government need not just accept a persons assertion.

 

[Shad]

Sorry, but your say-so is meaningless.

Opinion.

Um....what? How a teacher speaks to students falls within the category of "treatment". Sheesh.

Compelled speech. The teacher used the student's name. The only issue is validation.

The JW case was about compelled student speech (i.e., JW students cannot be forced to recite the pledge). I'd say "nice try", but.....nah.

Students which are protected via 1a which is the core of the case. Subject is irrelevant.

Are you serious? Show where in that link it says anything resembling "if something is not specifically in a contract an employer is powerless to do anything about it".

Loaded question already address. Repeating it 5 times is not going to get me to answer your loaded question.

They do all the time. Specific to this context, teachers are "compelled" to teach material as specified in the state standards, and teachers cannot teach contrary to it.

Which is not an endorsement of a view which is not compelled speech. You do know compelled speech is about law and government right? You seem to missed the context here.

For example, a science teacher at a public school who believes the Bible depicts a flat earth must still teach a spherical earth and cannot teach a flat earth.

Which does not require the teacher to denounce their religious view thus not compelled speech.

Scientism: A Muddled Idea that Even the Gods Themselves Pee on

You didn't know that?

Read in context I have been using. Next!

Geez dude, try and keep up. You accused the school of being in violation of contract law, even though you had no idea what was in the teacher's contract. I made no such accusation at all.

Yes as pronoun use is not required as it is a title 9 policy. It also violated the 1A. Two separate but linked arguments.

Oh for the love of.....would you please keep up? The scenario is....I'm at work, writing work-related emails to my employer's business partners, and in the midst of those emails I start going off about purple monkey dragons on Mars. According to you, since there's nothing specifically about that in my contract, my employer is powerless to do anything. Now....where's your citation for that assertion? The link above provides zero support for it.

Which I already answered. You have become disruptive and are not actually working the whole time. You called it "not personal" which is an ad hoc defense. You didn't look close as there is a highlighted "breach of contract" link.

Nope. You're just struggling to keep up.

Nope. You just do not read anything unless forced to. See your blunder above.

You can't be serious. In both cases an employer is telling an employee "This is what you must say". Calling one "compelled speech" and the other "procedure" is nothing but a laughable dodge on your part.

Compelled speech is about law. You never bothered looking up the context so have conflated compelled speech as a generalization of job procedure. I made the mistake in assuming you knew the legal reference when you obviously didn't.

He was told to do so (multiple times) by his supervisor, which falls within the district's policies of non-discrimination on the basis of gender, and not creating a hostile environment for students.

1a violation.

 

[Shad]

Already explained.

And rejected.

How is it a lie?

Do I really need to explain some of the basics of religion and theology to you here on RF of all place?

And no one is being forced to do so.

Wrong see the above blunder.

You do not seem to understand that those cases do not mean wjat you think those cases mean.

Wrong I just strip the case down to the core violation of citizen's religious view via school thus government mandated speech.

Except they were not terminating the teacher because of his religion.

The insubordination is directly linked to his religious view. They ordered him to do X, he said no. Read the article.

They were terminating the teacher because of his refusal to follow procedure. While the teacher asserts that this refusal was due to religious belief, a termination is still appropriate if an accomodation wpuld be too burdensome.

1A violation

Nope

We disagree and you have no say in which I accept nor reject.

That wasn't a problem.

Being selected for X does not merely they are above the law in their creation of policy. Still a 1A violation. The constitution does not defer to bureaucratics

Or not

We disagree

Speculation

Evident based on extrapolation of zero reports due to using a name.

Agaim EO doesn't matter.

The EO is part of the policy itself. It provided the guidelines.

Government compelling speech is not relevant when a person chooses to be there and avail themselves of the benefits of where the speech is compelled.

Still a 1a violation.

This is not true. The government need not just accept a persons assertion.

Government does have the power nor has the ability to determine the sincerity of a religious view. Rejecting an assertion is not a demonstration of lack of sincerity but a lack of belief by government. These are not the same.

We are going in circles here. We hold completely different views on how law is applied, the boundaries of government, violation of speech, interpretation of law, validation vs tolerance. Neither of us find the other's arguments convincing as we hold opposing axioms.

 

[Jose Fly]

Compelled speech. The teacher used the student's name. The only issue is validation.

How a teacher speaks to students is part of how that teacher treats students. A school district has the right to set the terms of how its teachers speak to and treat their students.

If you dispute that, then you're simply being absurd.

Students which are protected via 1a which is the core of the case. Subject is irrelevant.

Are you serious? You're actually arguing that there's no difference between a school district forcing JW students to recite a pledge and a school district telling its employees that they must treat students with respect?

Absurd....positively absurd.

Loaded question already address. Repeating it 5 times is not going to get me to answer your loaded question.

Obviously you're dodging the question because you cannot give a citation for your assertion (that unless something is specifically spelled out in a contract, an employer is powerless to do anything about it). I'll let that speak for itself.

Which is not an endorsement of a view which is not compelled speech. You do know compelled speech is about law and government right? You seem to missed the context here.

Then explain the difference between the two.

Case A: A teacher who believes, for religious reasons, that the earth is flat is told by the school district that they must tell their students that the earth is spherical and they cannot tell their students that the earth is flat.

Case B: A teacher who believes, for religious reasons, that transgenderism is morally wrong is told by the school district that they must address their transgender students by the names and pronouns they prefer and they cannot address them by their pre-transition names and pronouns.

Why, is B illegal compelled speech but A isn't?

Which does not require the teacher to denounce their religious view thus not compelled speech.

Then by the same token the teacher in question in Virginia was not required to denounce his religious views.

Yes as pronoun use is not required as it is a title 9 policy. It also violated the 1A. Two separate but linked arguments.

You're dodging. Again, you accused the school district of being in violation of contract law even though you had no idea what was in the teacher's contract. That's simply a matter of record.

You have become disruptive and are not actually working the whole time. You called it "not personal" which is an ad hoc defense. You didn't look close as there is a highlighted "breach of contract" link.

I don't need to look at the link because we're talking about my contract. There's nothing in it about being disruptive. And yes, I am working....I'm sending work-related emails to our business partners. It's that in doing so, I'm including some rather odd material.

So again, can my employer do anything about it? If so, on what basis?

Compelled speech is about law. You never bothered looking up the context so have conflated compelled speech as a generalization of job procedure. I made the mistake in assuming you knew the legal reference when you obviously didn't.

The fact remains, you tried to wave away one example of employer "compelled speech" as "procedure" while saying another example of the same thing is illegal. That speaks to the fundamental flaw in your position.

1a violation.

Again, your say-so carries no weight.

 

[Shad]

How a teacher speaks to students is part of how that teacher treats students.

The pronoun was not a direct communication and mistake. Use of names is completely normal.

A school district has the right to set the terms of how its teachers speak to and treat their students.

Not if it violates the 1A

If you dispute that, then you're simply being absurd.

Wrong, look up the 1A and compelled speech.

Are you serious? You're actually arguing that there's no difference between a school district forcing JW students to recite a pledge and a school district telling its employees that they must treat students with respect?

In both cases the schools were public thus government. In both cases the employee and student were mandated to say something against their religious views by government. Same core, different targets.

Obviously you're dodging the question because you cannot give a citation for your assertion (that unless something is specifically spelled out in a contract, an employer is powerless to do anything about it). I'll let that speak for itself.

Did you not read "breach of contract". It's the second paragraph.

"A breach of contract occurs when the agreement is not kept, because one party to the contract does not fulfill their obligation according to its terms."

When you are dicking around you are not working are you?

You manufactured a quote or do not know what a quote is. I did not quote a source ergo I have no obligation to find a quote I never made. Paraphrasing vs quotes. Look it up.

Then explain the difference between the two.

Case A: A teacher who believes, for religious reasons, that the earth is flat is told by the school district that they must tell their students that the earth is spherical and they cannot tell their students that the earth is flat.

This is teaching a science thus curriculum itself. It is not an endorsement of a personal view nor validation of one.

Case B: A teacher who believes, for religious reasons, that transgenderism is morally wrong is told by the school district that they must address their transgender students by the names and pronouns they prefer and they cannot address them by their pre-transition names and pronouns.

Names changes would be groundless as there is no referenced link between it and TG. TG would be covered under an objective moral code thus a truth. Use of a pronoun would require one to renounce a moral truth.

Why, is B illegal compelled speech but A isn't?

A is not an endorsement of X. Part of B is an endorsement of X.

Then by the same token the teacher in question in Virginia was not required to denounce his religious views.

No as he had to modify his worldview to fit someone else's by government.

You're dodging. Again, you accused the school district of being in violation of contract law even though you had no idea what was in the teacher's contract. That's simply a matter of record.

Wrong. The school is part of government thus can not force an endorsement of speech.

I don't need to look at the link because we're talking about my contract. There's nothing in it about being disruptive. And yes, I am working....I'm sending work-related emails to our business partners. It's that in doing so, I'm including some rather odd material. So again, can my employer do anything about it? If so, on what basis?

I was talking about the link and hyperlink.

You babbling about dragons is not working no matter how many times you say it. All you have done is segment your personal time into the smallest possible time frames to avoid detection. A sleight of hand, nothing more. If you are contract to work for 4 hours but spend 30 mins of that babble about dragons you only work for 3 1/2 hours. This is a contract breach covered under failure to meet contractual obligated hours of work. Productivity decline can also be used due to the unproductive disruption between work.

The fact remains, you tried to wave away one example of employer "compelled speech" as "procedure" while saying another example of the same thing is illegal. That speaks to the fundamental flaw in your position.

No you just didn't know what I was talking about as you never bothered to ask nor look it up.

Again, your say-so carries no weight.

Back at you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every time I see the thread's title, it seems misleading.
It suggests the teacher's specific belief, but it's actually
the poster's description of the effict.

 

[Curious George]

And rejected.



Do I really need to explain some of the basics of religion and theology to you here on RF of all place?



Wrong see the above blunder.




Wrong I just strip the case down to the core violation of citizen's religious view via school thus government mandated speech.




The insubordination is directly linked to his religious view. They ordered him to do X, he said no. Read the article.



1A violation



We disagree and you have no say in which I accept nor reject.



Being selected for X does not merely they are above the law in their creation of policy. Still a 1A violation. The constitution does not defer to bureaucratics



We disagree



Evident based on extrapolation of zero reports due to using a name.



The EO is part of the policy itself. It provided the guidelines.




Still a 1a violation.




Government does have the power nor has the ability to determine the sincerity of a religious view. Rejecting an assertion is not a demonstration of lack of sincerity but a lack of belief by government. These are not the same.

We are going in circles here. We hold completely different views on how law is applied, the boundaries of government, violation of speech, interpretation of law, validation vs tolerance. Neither of us find the other's arguments convincing as we hold opposing axioms.

So you cannot explain why this is a constitutional violation except by reliance on cases that are not on point.

It should be clear that this is not a constitutional violation. Amd beimg we have narrowed your argument down so tge only objection is a constitutional violation, I can only assume that you will cling to tgis belief that there is a constitutional problem regardless of what is presented. This seems to be where we disagree.

I think that it is unreasonable for you to equate instances where citizens are required to participate with this instance where the teacher can choose to find different employment.

 

[Shad]

So you cannot explain why this is a constitutional violation except by reliance on cases that are not on point.

It should be clear that this is not a constitutional violation. Amd beimg we have narrowed your argument down so tge only objection is a constitutional violation, I can only assume that you will cling to tgis belief that there is a constitutional problem regardless of what is presented. This seems to be where we disagree.

I think that it is unreasonable for you to equate instances where citizens are required to participate with this instance where the teacher can choose to find different employment.

We completely disagree. No point in rehashing what I already posted. You reject my views. I reject your views. We are at an impasse.

 

[Curious George]

You didn't read the case closely. JW were mandated to violate their religious views and punished if they refused. The ruling was based on a violation of the 1A. It is a 1A precedent itself.

JWs who were required to participate.

I quoted the distinction made in the case. You have yet to explain that.

We disagree.

I agree that we disagree

Do X in violation of 1A or be punished because government puts Y on a pedestal. You didn't look at the punishment for the JW which was being expelled. Selection is irrelevant.

Selection?

 

[Shad]

JWs who were required to participate.

I quoted the distinction made in the case. You have yet to explain that.

Your distinction was incorrect and a misinterpretation of the core principles at play of 1A and mandated speech. What do you think they were participating in? Mandated speech within a ritual. Government can not mandate a citizen say X against their will and faith nor punish them for failure to comply. There is no established danger by not using a pronoun.

[Selection?

Selection is irrelevant as it is about government and mandated speech.

I tried to remove this as I didn't want to keep a discuss that is fruitless going. My wifi dropped during an edit leading me to be unable to undo it at the time. So I just deleted it and posted a new one.

Again I reject your view. You reject mine. Any further explanation of something you already dismissed is just going in circles.

 

[Prestor John]

It is not irrelevant, but I can understand your fear. When one knows that one is wrong the Ostrich Defense seems to be a good idea.

It is completely irrelevant.

An employer instructed an employee not to say something is very different than an employer compelling an employee to say something.

But sure why not? If an employer tells you to say "Merry Christmas" you are only acknowledging the season. You are not acknowledging the nativity myth.

"Happy Holidays" would also acknowledge the season.

The courts have already stated that no employer (unless it is a business directly correlated to Christmas) can for their employees to say "Merry Christmas".

 

[Prestor John]

For a teacher, being respectful to the kids in their care is as much of a core duty as it is for a mall santa to say "merry Christmas!"

Many people have been trying to paint this as a "respect" issue, but I just don't see it.

Children should learn to "respect" the world-views of others and that society is not necessarily going to conform to your way of thinking.

No child has the right to force any adult to accept an ideology they do not agree with.

A Christian child cannot demand that every teacher they have says, "God bless you" to everyone that sneezes.

A Muslim child cannot demand that every teach they have greets everyone with "Salaam".

It does not matter what the children believe or how they feel or view the world, they cannot force others to conform to their beliefs.

This whole "being respectful to kids" is a sham argument.

 

[Prestor John]

Ironic, considering your many previous posts...

Voicing your opinion is not compelling anyone to so anything.

 

[Prestor John]

I note you failed to answer the question: When did YOU decide to be straight?

IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER? YOUR CLAIMS ARE FALSE.


Irony noted.


Accurate, too.



Yes, at all.


Irony duly noted, considering your stance with respect to LGBTQ.


Absolutely! That is part and parcel of becoming an Employee: you voluntarily submit to the rules of your employ-- so long as they do not break laws. Speech isn't protected like you think it is. Nobody is forced: they can always quit.



100% false. And again? Irony is duly noted: When did YOU decide to be straight?


Irony duly noted, considering your 100% lack of information with respect to LGBTQ, as demonstrated in this very post.

You believe that homosexuality and transgenderism are the same thing?

 

[Prestor John]

But no trans person with whom I have met has ever believed this way. They have believed they should have been a different sex, or they would feel more correct being a different sex. I am sure that does not cover all the different beliefs out there, but the way you are trying to frame the discussion seems manipulative. A person identifying as different from their assumed birth sex, are not disconnected with reality. Most of them seem very aware of their apparent birth sex. So why wpuld you call ot a delusion?

Why do you label it "assumed birth sex" or "apparent birth sex"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is completely irrelevant.

An employer instructed an employee not to say something is very different than an employer compelling an employee to say something.

"Happy Holidays" would also acknowledge the season.

The courts have already stated that no employer (unless it is a business directly correlated to Christmas) can for their employees to say "Merry Christmas".

Let's start with your "Merry Christmas" claim. Though that one is a bit weak if you think about it. Please find some links that support you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many people have been trying to paint this as a "respect" issue, but I just don't see it.

Of course you don't.

Children should learn to "respect" the world-views of others and that society is not necessarily going to conform to your way of thinking.

And you think that a trans kid won't learn this lesson without a teacher making the point to demonstrate it?

No child has the right to force any adult to accept an ideology they do not agree with.

Requiring a teacher to follow a reasonable non-discrimination policy as a condition of employment is not "forcing an adult to accept an ideology."

And we aren't talking about the demands of the child; we're talking about the instructions from the teacher's employer. Yes, the instructions are made with regard to the well-being of the students, but we aren't talking about a child ordering their teacher the way you suggest.

A Christian child cannot demand that every teacher they have says, "God bless you" to everyone that sneezes.

A Christian school could.

And this has nothing to do with respect. A better analogy would be that a teacher can't call a Christian child a "kafir" (or maybe "Papist") even if the teacher believes the term would be accurate.

A Muslim child cannot demand that every teach they have greets everyone with "Salaam".

Again: we're talking about following a demand from the school, not one directly from the child.

And again: a more apt analogy would be a teacher calling a Muslim child a "Mohammadan." Not appropriate even if the teacher thinks it would be accurate.

It does not matter what the children believe or how they feel or view the world, they cannot force others to conform to their beliefs.

So the school administration should not be forced to conform to the beliefs of anti-trans teachers?

This whole "being respectful to kids" is a sham argument.

No, the sham argument is that this is a free speech issue for the teacher. A classroom is not a pulpit that a teacher is free to use however they want.

Any employer, but especially a public school board, is certainly entitled to enact and enforce non-discrimination and respectful workplace policies.

 

[Curious George]

Why do you label it "assumed birth sex" or "apparent birth sex"?

Because unless the teacher ran a DNA or genital check it is assumed right? They don't know.