School's transgender policy trumped teacher's religious rights, US court rules

The Seventh Court of Appeals has a pretty high reversal rate in the Supreme Court They have had 32 out of 51 cases overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. Religious rights are protected in the Constitution pronouns aren't.
 
AProudLefty said:
Why do you keep talking about feelings? Didn't your parents teach you about politeness and social customs?

"Hi my name is Pete."
"I am going to call you Prick Peter cause fuck your feelings, that's why."
Click to expand...

You used the word in your own post. Are you high?
 
ExpressLane said:
The Seventh Court of Appeals has a pretty high reversal rate in the Supreme Court They have had 32 out of 51 cases overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. Religious rights are protected in the Constitution pronouns aren't.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on that last part. FREEDOM is protected in our Constitution. People can call themselves whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom.

I don't see a defense for this teacher's stance.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
So if a teacher sincerely believes that having a black student in his class violates his religious beliefs, he doesn't have to prove HOW, he can just claim that? Same with a gay student?
Click to expand...

Your beliefs cannot interfere with the conduct of your job. They would probably quietly place that students in another teachers class.

The courts can question the sincerity of your beliefs. During Viet Nam men who wanted to declare conscientious objector status but were not members of churches with those beliefs had to face a lot more questioning than Quaker, JW, etc. They had to be against all war and not just Viet Nam.
 
AProudLefty said:
How hard is it to call them by their names? There is nothing in the Bible about it. What does he think will happen if he calls them by their names? Lightning strike?
Click to expand...

I suspect that the children were demanding their made up names be used as pronoun as opposed to their legal names.
 
AProudLefty said:
There is no harm, therefore he has no case.
Click to expand...

If there is no harm in exempting him from saying the pledge against his religious beliefs then the government cannot require him to do so. So, he has a good freedom of religion case against the school district.

Court cases have involved Amish refusing to send kids to school past 8th grade violating compulsory attendance laws, Amish paying into Social Security, A couple covering the "Live Free or Die" slogan on the NH license plate, students saying the pledge or standing during the pledge, etc. All these cases were won by the individual/group challenging the law.
 
Flash said:
If there is no harm in exempting him from saying the pledge against his religious beliefs then the government cannot require him to do so. So, he has a good freedom of religion case against the school district.

Court cases have involved Amish refusing to send kids to school past 8th grade violating compulsory attendance laws, Amish paying into Social Security, A couple covering the "Live Free or Die" slogan on the NH license plate, students saying the pledge or standing during the pledge, etc. All these cases were won by the individual/group challenging the law.
Click to expand...

No. I meant the harm or "undue burden" on him. Since there is no "undue burden" on him, he has no case.
 
AProudLefty said:
It is not just about pronouns but about preferred names. Many people have preferred names. Nothing unusual.
Click to expand...

My granddaughter will get called "Margaret" on the first day of school and "Maggie" afterward and this is pretty normal.

But when "William" wants to be "Phoebe" that's another matter.

The teacher is left with "you there" or "3rd clarinet".
 
Celticguy said:
My granddaughter will get called "Margaret" on the first day of school and "Maggie" afterward and this is pretty normal.

But when "William" wants to be "Phoebe" that's another matter.

The teacher is left with "you there" or "3rd clarinet".
Click to expand...

I don't see the difference.

It's just what someone wants to be called. I don't understand this teacher's interpretation of Christianity to feel like that's a bad or unacceptable thing to do.
 
AProudLefty said:
No. I meant the harm or "undue burden" on him. Since there is no "undue burden" on him, he has no case.
Click to expand...

Which example are you referring to?

It does not refer to the harm to the person, but if the person/student objects to saying the pledge on religious grounds, there is no harm to anybody or the public by exempting him. That does not make the law unconstitutional, but it means the person cannot be required to obey it.

If his religion believes you should never drive under 75 mph, there is potential harm if he is exempted from the speed limit.

The law must have a legitimate secular purpose.
 
Flash said:
Your beliefs cannot interfere with the conduct of your job. They would probably quietly place that students in another teachers class.

The courts can question the sincerity of your beliefs. During Viet Nam men who wanted to declare conscientious objector status but were not members of churches with those beliefs had to face a lot more questioning than Quaker, JW, etc. They had to be against all war and not just Viet Nam.
Click to expand...

I recall how hard it was to get CO status back then.
 
Celticguy said:
I suspect that the children were demanding their made up names be used as pronoun as opposed to their legal names.
Click to expand...

Maybe then you can explain to us the difference between little David telling his teacher that he prefers to be called "Dave," and little Rose telling her teacher that she wants to be called "they"? I mean, other that your repulsive bigotry, that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top