A revived legal dispute over a Christian music teacher’s refusal to use students’ preferred names and pronouns will offer an early test of the US Supreme Court’s new standard for religious accommodations in the workplace.
A revived legal dispute over a Christian music teacher’s refusal to use students’ preferred names and pronouns will offer an early test of the US Supreme Court’s new standard for religious accommodations in the workplace.
But Kluge is doing it for transphobic reasons, and should therefore be opposed and made to stop it.
Even if last names reads as reasonable, the teacher is doing it specifically to dispute the validity of their student’s genders.
Every time this teacher spits a gender-diverse student’s surname at them, they will hear the disrespect and poison it is dripping with and each time will bleed them baleful in the belly.
A person should not be permitted to harm a vulnerable person like that, especially if they are in a position of power and especially if they are a state employee.
Students have a right to their person and identity; no religion supersedes that right.
I don’t think you even need a transphobia argument; there’s a pretty clear case for basic discrimination by sex, which is much legally tighter. We all know that this teacher would have zero issues calling a James by Jimmy, or an Elizabeth by Liz. The teacher is refusing to allow a child to use a name of a given gender association purely because of the child’s sex.
And conveniently, this is the exact argument that Gorsuch used in banning workplace discrimination against queer people: it’s discrimination on the basis of sex to mistreat someone for dating or marrying a man solely because he is also a man.
I think I do need the transphobia argument, because transphobia is bad and it is good to argue against it. The fact “it could be fought with simple contract law if it had to be” not withstanding.
I’d amend your stance as well to “perceived sex”.
Oh for sure, and I’m not meaning to downplay the impact there. I’m speaking very strictly on the tightness of the legal argument.
“I have shown that this person is transphobic” may not necessarily convince a judge, whereas “I have shown that this person is discriminating on the basis of sex in blatant violation of Title IX” is a legal slam dunk.