Californian teacher wins her pronouns court case

It was a settlement, dumbfucks. No jury.

Unsurprisingly, she invoked her “religious” rights. Shocked, I say. Just like that Kentucky bitch who refused to issue marriage licenses gay couples.

I just can’t seem to find anywhere in the Bible where it forbids one from calling someone what they wished to be called. It isn’t difficult.

The hypocrisy is that YAHWEH is in the Bible over 6500 times, yet he demands you not use his name, so you “Christians” defer to substitute names. PRICELESS!
 
domer76 said:
It was a settlement, dumbfucks. No jury.

Unsurprisingly, she invoked her “religious” rights. Shocked, I say. Just like that Kentucky bitch who refused to issue marriage licenses gay couples.

I just can’t seem to find anywhere in the Bible where it forbids one from calling someone what they wished to be called. It isn’t difficult.

The hypocrisy is that YAHWEH is in the Bible over 6500 times, yet he demands you not use his name, so you “Christians” defer to substitute names. PRICELESS!
Click to expand...
It is about compelled speech....as you almost certainly know....I doubt that you are as moronic as you present.
 
domer76 said:
It was a settlement, dumbfucks. No jury.

Unsurprisingly, she invoked her “religious” rights. Shocked, I say. Just like that Kentucky bitch who refused to issue marriage licenses gay couples.

I just can’t seem to find anywhere in the Bible where it forbids one from calling someone what they wished to be called. It isn’t difficult.

The hypocrisy is that YAHWEH is in the Bible over 6500 times, yet he demands you not use his name, so you “Christians” defer to substitute names. PRICELESS!
Click to expand...
Pivot fallacy. Try to stay on topic.
 
domer76 said:
It’s called common decency to call a person the name they wish. It only needs to be codified when religious bigots can’t even summon that.
Click to expand...
So then you think "common decency" should be legislated and/or otherwise forced on people?

If some fat, hairy ass dude for who the closest resemblance to a woman is his pair of flabby, hairy man-boobs, insists on being referred to as "she/her", are you in favor of the law or an employer being allowed to force ITS coworkers to refer to IT with feminine pronouns?

Or should it be the personal choice of those speaking to or about IT?
 
Nomad said:
If some fat, hairy ass dude for who the closest resemblance to a woman is his pair of flabby, hairy man-boobs,
Click to expand...

Floppin' big hairy man boobs with drifts of hair falling to the floor all around them due to their amazing hairiness. Hair everywhere! HAIRY! Like a disgusting Sasquatch. You mean THAT dude?

Nomad said:
insists on being referred to as "she/her", are you in favor of the law or an employer being allowed to force ITS coworkers to refer to IT with feminine pronouns?
Click to expand...

Well, if they're REALLY hairy...as in big ol' floppy hairy manboobs then I don't think anyone should be required to treat them with respect at all.

Nomad said:
Or should it be the personal choice of those speaking to or about IT?
Click to expand...

It should probably be a personal choice but for decent people the personal choice is NOT to antagonize someone if they want to be called "X".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top