I never said he did.
What I said was (you only quoted part of it): "I know. I never said he was obligated to respect every faith equally...I simply pointed out his obvious dislike of the student's faith, as he characterized it, and wondered how that may have figured into his ruling when he decided that the students faith, as he characterized it, has less legal protection than the teacher's."
No one is expecting them to test anything, nor to accept or reject any part of it, on faith or any other way. All the school chose to allow were reasonable accommodations. For most people, using one pronoun over another one isn't all that unreasonable (no more so than using a nickname over the name on one's birth certificate), but apparently the teacher felt her faith required that she view this accommodation as particularly onerous. And the judge agreed, so mote it be.
A ruling on nicknames will probably come the next time that teacher is asked to call a student Chuck instead of Charles. Or Bart instead of Bartholomew.
I never said they were the same thing. I said they were comparable. And they are. The teacher is asked to use one pronoun instead of another one, just like she'd be asked to use one name over a different one. Comparable.
Faith isn't evidence based either, and yet the teacher's faith must be accommodated. Not the student's faith, as determined by the judge, though. Just hers. Only hers.
Pronoun use doesn't involve, or require, faith in anything whatsoever.
You don't even have to believe they're accurate to still use them. No more than you have to believe that Chuck is the name on the kid's birth certificate.
-- A2SG, now I got that song stuck in my head....Chuck, Chuck, Bo-Buck, banana-fanna fo....well, You get the idea....
