Professor awarded $400,000 after being disciplined over wrong pronouns

[Spurminator]

You're the one saying he was being a . If it's subjective, then me saying he wasn't being a is just as accurate as you saying he was.

I agree. But you said the *court* ruled he wasn't a . That's incorrect. Keep up.

Since you weren't there, you probably just assume Christian = asshole.

Why would I do that? His actions are described in the article, I don't have to infer his personality by his religious iden y. Does it even say he's a Christian? Most of the Christians I know would have accommodated her request.

[MultiTroll]

The only reason I would want a house in OC is to sell it. Not saying it's not a pretty place, you just couldn't pay me enough to live next to a bunch of morons.

Poll.
Live next to Radical Tranny
Live next to Radical MAGA

[DMC]

I agree. But you said the *court* ruled he wasn't a . That's incorrect. Keep up.

You allow her to have beliefs (that she should be called by a chosen pronoun) but don't allow him to have core beliefs (religious and philosophical beliefs regarding addressing people as their preferred pronoun instead of how they were born). She's not a , but he is.

Why would I do that? His actions are described in the article, I don't have to infer his personality by his religious iden y. Does it even say he's a Christian? Most of the Christians I know would have accommodated her request.

Shawnee
RELI 2230 - History of Christian Thought
A survey of major theological traditions and controversies within historic Christianity, beginning with the origins of Christianity, the early church fathers and the major creedal formulations, and continuing through the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the rise of modern theological approaches.

Credits: 3

Lecture hours: 3
General Education Program Course GEP

Nicholas Meriwether taught philosophy, religion, ethics, and the 'History of Christian Thought' (Alliance Defending Freedom)

[DMC]

Poll.
Live next to Radical Tranny
Live next to Radical MAGA

Live next to pedophile

[Spurminator]

You allow her to have beliefs (that she should be called by a chosen pronoun) but don't allow him to have core beliefs (religious and philosophical beliefs regarding addressing people as their preferred pronoun instead of how they were born). She's not a , but he is.

That's right. I do not believe that his beliefs excuse his refusal to call someone "sir" in front of a class when they have asked not to be called "sir." Continuing to do so makes him a .

This would not be the first time in history that two people with opposing beliefs clash and that one of them is a .

Shawnee
RELI 2230 - History of Christian Thought
A survey of major theological traditions and controversies within historic Christianity, beginning with the origins of Christianity, the early church fathers and the major creedal formulations, and continuing through the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the rise of modern theological approaches.

Credits: 3

Lecture hours: 3
General Education Program Course GEP

Nicholas Meriwether taught philosophy, religion, ethics, and the 'History of Christian Thought' (Alliance Defending Freedom)

So your theory is that I researched this guy's academic history and religion before coming to the conclusion that he's being a by refusing to not call someone "sir."

You're putting a lot of work into this but it doesn't make you less wrong about the court ruling that he's not a . I'll await your next strawman.

[DMC]

That's right. I do not believe that his beliefs excuse his refusal to call someone "sir" in front of a class when they have asked not to be called "sir." Continuing to do so makes him a .

This would not be the first time in history that two people with opposing beliefs clash and that one of them is a .




So your theory is that I researched this guy's academic history and religion before coming to the conclusion that he's being a by refusing to not call someone "sir."

You're putting a lot of work into this but it doesn't make you less wrong about the court ruling that he's not a . I'll await your next strawman.

The "too much effort" defense. It's so much better to keep responding without any facts.

Two people with beliefs. One has a religious belief and the other has a self iden y belief. The 1st did not ask the 2nd to change anything, but the 2nd demanded that the 1st ignore their belief and appease the beliefs of the 2nd.

It's clear what the court was saying. Since you called it subjective you really don't have much of an argument here.

[Spurminator]

The "too much effort" defense. It's so much better to keep responding without any facts.

You brought up his Christianity, not me. His religion has never been relevant to anything I've said in this thread. Why would I do that kind of legwork?

Two people with beliefs. One has a religious belief and the other has a self iden y belief. The 1st did not ask the 2nd to change anything, but the 2nd demanded that the 1st ignore their belief and appease the beliefs of the 2nd.

It's clear what the court was saying. Since you called it subjective you really don't have much of an argument here.

The court said his school violated his First Amendment rights. That's it.

Your argument is that if he was actually being a , then the court wouldn't have ruled his 1A rights were violated? In other words, the 1A does not protect the subjective act of being a ?

I don't even think you're that stupid. Are you?

[DMC]

You brought up his Christianity, not me. His religion has never been relevant to anything I've said in this thread. Why would I do that kind of legwork?

Only one person was expected to give up their cons utionally protected right. It wasn't the liberal. Why would you care?

The court said his school violated his First Amendment rights. That's it.

Of course, and that right was that he exercise his freedom of religion when dealing with the liberal who demanded he ignore his rights.

Your argument is that if he was actually being a , then the court wouldn't have ruled his 1A rights were violated? In other words, the 1A does not protect the subjective act of being a ?

I'm arguing that the court doesn't think exercising your cons utional rights is akin to being a . People who are within their rights to act on their deeply held beliefs aren't being s by doing so. You certainly didn't think the tranny was being a by confronting the professor about being called "sir".

I don't even think you're that stupid. Are you?

Anyone who disagrees with your subjective, liberal viewpoint is stupid obviously. What a nice pedestal you sit upon.

[Spurminator]

Only one person was expected to give up their cons utionally protected right. It wasn't the liberal. Why would you care?

Of course, and that right was that he exercise his freedom of religion when dealing with the liberal who demanded he ignore his rights.

People who are within their rights to act on their deeply held beliefs aren't being s by doing so. You certainly didn't think the tranny was being a by confronting the professor about being called "sir".

This is so melodramatic I don't think you even believe it.

People have been asked every day, for decades, "Don't call me (blank)." Only in the context of this stupid argument would you pretend to believe that's some kind of affront or cons utional violation being requested.

I think it's possible for someone to be a while exercising cons utionally protected speech. And so do you, except when you're cosplaying as a moral relativist to keep a dumb argument going.

I'm arguing that the court doesn't think exercising your cons utional rights is akin to being a .

Well that's a laughably stupid argument that shows a lack of very basic understanding of the Cons ution and how courts work.

Anyone who disagrees with your subjective, liberal viewpoint is stupid obviously. What a nice pedestal you sit upon.

My viewpoint that the First Amendment protects being a is not subjective.

Cry some more, .

[Trainwreck2100]

This is so melodramatic I don't think you even believe it.

People have been asked every day, for decades, "Don't call me (blank)." Only in the context of this stupid argument would you pretend to believe that's some kind of affront or cons utional violation being requested.

I think it's possible for someone to be a while exercising cons utionally protected speech. And so do you, except when you're cosplaying as a moral relativist to keep a dumb argument going.

The biggest question is why does calling a tranny "Mr." violate le IX, how does that fall under discrimination, especially when the student passes with an above avg grade. If i called a female "dude" or "bro" have I discriminated against her? Being called a preferred pronoun is that a right, and when not called by that is a codified "discrimination"

[DMC]

This is so melodramatic I don't think you even believe it.

People have been asked every day, for decades, "Don't call me (blank)." Only in the context of this stupid argument would you pretend to believe that's some kind of affront or cons utional violation being requested.

I think it's possible for someone to be a while exercising cons utionally protected speech. And so do you, except when you're cosplaying as a moral relativist to keep a dumb argument going.

The professor offered to use the Tranny's chosen name, but refused to use a feminine pronoun. That wasn't good enough. Too bad, so sad.

Well that's a laughably stupid argument that shows a lack of very basic understanding of the Cons ution and how courts work.

You said being a " " is subjective. You want to make it objective to suit your argument. Nuh uh. Tranny and Shawnee lost.

My viewpoint that the First Amendment protects being a is not subjective.

It's a useless argument since you cannot objectively define what the 1A actually protects, since "being a " is subjective. Is shooting up a theater "being a "? Does that get protection under the 1A?

Cry some more, .

emotionally invested