Florida judge exonerates Miami teacher fired for refusing to use student’s preferred pronouns

[A2SG]

What faith did the teacher impose?

Her faith, over their faith, as determined by the judge.

Just because the teacher doesn't agree with the student's faith and refuses to repeat the student's statement of faith doesn't equate to the teacher imposing their own faith on the student.

So the student's "faith" is secondary to hers, then? Well, according to this ruling, that's what the judge decided, so I guess that's the way faith works in Florida. You get to impose your faith on opposing faiths if the judge agrees with your faith.

I guess you're okay with that.

The student is free to believe whatever they like....right?

Just as the teacher is, sure.

The teacher simply isn't required to pretend that they agree with the student's faith.

No one said she had to pretend anything of the sort. She's free to believe whatever she likes, regardless of what pronouns are used.

Of course, maybe something else came to light on this case I'm not aware of?

I have no idea. I only read the news story provided, I have no other information to go on.

-- A2SG, but feel free to do whatever further research you wish to....

 

[A2SG]

I agree...and it appears the school now does exactly that.

Apparently not. The teacher's right to impose her faith on her students is protected, but the student's faith (as determined by the judge) isn't protected at all. It can be violated any time a teacher with the preferred faith disgrees with it.

At least, that's what this judge ruled.

A student of Jewish faith can request that the teacher refer to him as "gods chosen one" but the teacher isn't obligated to do so and arguably....probably shouldn't as that would be showing favoritism, wouldn't it?

Maybe a Jewish student should try that. If they get a Jewish judge, maybe they'll get to impose their faith on the teacher.

Also, any bans on Christian "conversion therapies" for gay children that exist within any state laws should also apply to transgender-clinics....since they are essentially the same thing with the extra drugs and surgeries.

Sure, try that. If you get the right judge, and they agree with the faith involved, you might even win. Apparently, religious freedoms in Florida go to whichever faith the judge agrees with now.

-- A2SG, yet another reason to avoid the place, but that's me......

 

[MrMoe]

Sure, I'll comment.

If, as Judge Van Laningham decided, transgenderism is to be considered a “new secular faith,” why is this teacher allowed to impose her faith on her transgender students, while they're not afforded the same protection she is? Why is one faith being favored over the other, according to this judge's ruling?

If you want to call transgenderism a "faith," they why aren't you according it the same legal protection other faiths get?

-- A2SG, if you wanna call it a faith, then you gotta treat it like one.....

What would be your solution so neither the teacher or the student impose their faith on each other?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Her faith,

Her faith only determines how she acts...not the student.

The student is free to believe whatever they like. This case has determined the words the teacher can use....not the words the student can use.

So I'll ask again....what imposition has been made on the student?

She's free to believe whatever she likes, regardless of what pronouns are used.

Then why is the student trying to impose the student's faith on the teacher?

The teacher isn't demanding the student be removed from the classroom for the pronouns they use. The teacher isn't forcing the student to adopt the teacher's faith.

The student on the other hand, tried to have the teacher fired for refusing to adopt the gender cult's beliefs and language.

Only one side of this case involves anyone imposing their faith on anyone else....and that's the student. The judge nailed it on this case.

I have no idea. I only read the news story provided, I have no other information to go on.

Then unless you can provide an example of the teacher imposing something upon the student (and you can't, because that didn't happen) what we have here is a teacher defending their own rights....

1. The right to freedom of religion/belief.

2. The right to freedom of speech.

The student tried to use the school to take those from the teacher and lost. We should be happy for that. The teacher stood up for herself and was victorious in defending her rights.

 

[A2SG]

What would be your solution so neither the teacher or the student impose their faith on each other?

I don't have one. I'm merely commenting on the story, as requested.

-- A2SG, just being polite over here....

 

[A2SG]

Her faith only determines how she acts...not the student.

Not according to other faith-based rulings. An employer's faith can determine what health care and insurance choices the employee is allowed to get, and some faiths are allowed to deny service to whatever groups they feel offend that faith.

Looks like some faiths are more equal than others.

The student is free to believe whatever they like. This case has determined the words the teacher can use....not the words the student can use.

So I'll ask again....what imposition has been made on the student?

The students' faith, as determined by the judge, is being denied.

But at least they're not trying to have a cake made. Imagine the furor were that to occur!!

Then why is the student trying to impose the student's faith on the teacher?

Same reason the teacher is trying to impose hers, when she refused to acknowledge their preferred pronouns, I suppose.

The teacher isn't demanding the student be removed from the classroom for the pronouns they use. The teacher isn't forcing the student to adopt the teacher's faith.

By refusing to acknowledge the students' faith, as determined by the judge, she's infringing their religious freedom to practice their faith as they see fit.

The student on the other hand, tried to have the teacher fired for refusing to adopt the gender cult's beliefs and language.

Not according to the story posted in the OP. The school fired her, not the students. The reasons given in the OP article were that her “personal conduct … seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the school district.”

Admittedly, I don't live in Florida, so things may be different there, but I'm not aware that students had the ability to fire school personnel.

Further, I saw nothing in that story that stated the student ever expected the teacher to adopt any beliefs at all. All the student expected was that the teacher not deny their faith, as determined by the judge. That, she did; so the school acted accordingly.

Only one side of this case involves anyone imposing their faith on anyone else....and that's the student. The judge nailed it on this case.

Well, since the judge determined that transgenderism is a "new secular faith," according to his ruling, then this becomes a conflict between two differing faiths.

I guess the rule now is, when two faiths conflict, the winner is whoever the judge deciding the case agrees with.

You okay with that?

Then unless you can provide an example of the teacher imposing something upon the student (and you can't, because that didn't happen) what we have here is a teacher defending their own rights....

The student's faith, as determined by the judge, is being denied, and their right to practice their faith is infringed.

1. The right to freedom of religion/belief.

Which is denied the student in this case.

2. The right to freedom of speech.

Not really an issue here, since Congress passed no law.

The student tried to use the school to take those from the teacher and lost. We should be happy for that. The teacher stood up for herself and was victorious in defending her rights.

And in the process, the student's freedom to practice their faith, as determined by the judge, was denied.

Looks like, in Florida at least, some faiths are more equal than others. Some faiths apparently get to call students whatever they want to, regardless of the student's faith, and, further, get to determine their employees health care choices and even get to disregard any anti-discrimination laws they wish to, but the second-class faiths are just expected to take it, be quiet, and stay in the back of the bus.

-- A2SG, then again, considering who is in charge down there in Florida, I guess we can't be all that surprised by this.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not according to other faith-based rulings.

I'm not going to bother explaining how law works if you're unable to understand the concept of this case ruling applying to this case and not others.

The students' faith, as determined by the judge, is being denied.

The judge hasn't required the student to do anything....in fact, if anything, the judge has recognized the student's faith.

Same reason the teacher is trying to impose hers, when she refused to acknowledge their preferred pronouns, I suppose.

The teacher isn't imposing her faith on the student at all. She hasn't required the student to use certain pronouns.

By refusing to acknowledge the students' faith, as determined by the judge, she's infringing their religious freedom to practice their faith as they see fit.

If the student believes their faith gives them the ability to control what words people use...that student is the one imposing their faith upon others.

Imagine the arrogant, narcissistic, entitled, egomaniac that believes they have the right to determine how other people speak to them. Such a person deserves no respect.

Well, since the judge determined that transgenderism is a "new secular faith," according to his ruling, then this becomes a conflict between two differing faiths.

Right...and the government shouldn't be showing favoritism.

Since you can't give an example of the teacher imposing their faith on anyone I'm just going to erase the rest of what you wrote.

Thanks for trying anyway. It was fun.

 

[A2SG]

I'm not going to bother explaining how law works if you're unable to understand the concept of this case ruling applying to this case and not others.

I know how the law works, so you can dispense with your usual incorrect and completely unfounded assumptions about me.

In this case, though, I'm talking about how certain faiths are upheld and protected by certain legal rulings. Or, in the case of the student here, not protected.

Unlike the way other faiths are protected.

The judge hasn't required the student to do anything....in fact, if anything, the judge has recognized the student's faith.

Yup. Recognized it, and then denigrated it, and then ruled against it, as if that faith doesn't deserve the same degree of protection as the teacher's.

The teacher isn't imposing her faith on the student at all. She hasn't required the student to use certain pronouns.

Yeah, that's what the judge ruled. But it seems school policy did require her to respect her student's preference regarding pronouns. She chose to go against that policy, as dictated by her faith, and the judge agreed that her faith was more important than school policy and the faith, as determined by the judge, of her students.

Her faith was more equal that the student's.

If the student believes their faith gives them the ability to control what words people use...that student is the one imposing their faith upon others.

But it was the school that required teachers respect student's pronoun preferences, wasn't it? The student didn't make a demand that wasn't in accordance to school policy, did they?

It was Judge Van Laningham who decided her faith superseded school policy. Not the student. Just like in other rulings where some faiths, like employers who don't like their employee's health care choices or service providers who don't like certain segments of society, supersede other's rights.

Seems the idea that some faiths are more equal that others isn't just a Florida thing.

Imagine the arrogant, narcissistic, entitled, egomaniac that believes they have the right to determine how other people speak to them. Such a person deserves no respect.

Your bias is noted. But, I'm sure Judge Van Laningham would agree with you, so I guess you're okay here. Some faiths deserve respect and protection under the law, and some don't.

Right...and the government shouldn't be showing favoritism.

But it is, in this case. The teacher's faith wins, the student's faith doesn't. It just has to sit in the back of the bus and be quiet, being that the faith, as determined by the judge, deserves no respect or legal protection.

Since you can't give an example of the teacher imposing their faith on anyone I'm just going to erase the rest of what you wrote.

She gets to call the student whatever she wants to. The student's faith isn't respected, isn't acknowledged, isn't given the same protection hers is.

But sure, erase that too. You've proven good at ignoring whatever points work against your preconceived ideas.

Thanks for trying anyway. It was fun.

Yeah, I like the Talking Heads too.

-- A2SG, letting the days go by....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know how the law works, so you can dispense with your usual incorrect and completely unfounded assumptions about me.

Then you understand why cases unrelated to this one don't matter.

Yup. Recognized it, and then denigrated it

Indeed....no religion has the right to control the speech of others. This is a free country, and we aren't beholden to your proclamations of faith.

I don't respect this new religion either.

Yeah, that's what the judge ruled. But it seems school policy did require her to respect her student's preference regarding pronouns.

And the school was in the wrong.

The judge ruled correctly.

But it was the school that required teachers respect student's pronoun preferences, wasn't it?

Would the school have even heard about it if not for the student?

It was Judge Van Laningham who decided her faith superseded school policy.

Absolutely, it's a public school. Separation of church and state. The government is not to favor any faith over any other faith.

But sure, erase that too. You've proven good at ignoring whatever points work against your preconceived ideas.

You're just repeating the same point over and over...

1. Sure, whether you believe that the school tried to impose the student's faith or the student did....it's irrelevant. It's the student's faith being imposed.

2. The school was wrong to do it....as the judge correctly noted. The student's faith isn't something that should be imposed on the teacher....not by the student, not by the school.

3. At no point have you given any examples of the teacher's faith being imposed on anyone....because it didn't happen. The student hasn't been required to admit their imaginary faith based beliefs in fantasy genders is false. They may be required to in biology class....and at that point, I'll have as much sympathy for them as I do those Christians who don't believe in evolution. Evolution requires sexual dimorphism in mammals so the student will have to learn those facts if it's a quality school.

Now....do you have any new points to make or will you just keep repeating the ones I've already refuted?

 

[A2SG]

Then you understand why cases unrelated to this one don't matter.

I never claimed those other cases were related to this one...I only compared them. Specifically, in the way certain faiths are granted more favorable protections than others.

Indeed....no religion has the right to control the speech of others.

Remind me of this around the middle of December, wouldja?

This is a free country, and we aren't beholden to your proclamations of faith.

I've made no proclamations at all, nor have I mentioned any faith of my own in any way whatsoever.

You sure you didn't mean that comment for someone else? You didn't get confused, did you?

I don't respect this new religion either.

Clearly. You seem to agree with this idea of giving certain specific faiths more favorable treatment than others.

And the school was in the wrong.

The judge ruled correctly.

Yeah, I figured out your view on this a while back.

Would the school have even heard about it if not for the student?

I have no idea when the school instituted whatever policy it has regarding pronoun use, or whether or not this particular student was part of that decision. If you care to research this, feel free.

Absolutely, it's a public school. Separation of church and state. The government is not to favor any faith over any other faith.

Except in this case, where the teacher, and the judge, clearly do favor one over the other, and now the school must follow suit. I guess that separation only works some of the time in Florida.

You're just repeating the same point over and over...

Want to be sure the point is understood.

1. Sure, whether you believe that the school tried to impose the student's faith or the student did....it's irrelevant. It's the student's faith being imposed.

Well, that is how the teacher and the judge saw it, anyway. Now it's the teacher who gets to impose her faith, and the student has to get to the back of the bus.

2. The school was wrong to do it....as the judge correctly noted. The student's faith isn't something that should be imposed on the teacher....not by the student, not by the school.

Yeah, only the teacher gets to do that. Since she find a judge who agreed with her faith, and decided to favor it over one he didn't like.

3. At no point have you given any examples of the teacher's faith being imposed on anyone....because it didn't happen.

Yeah, I'm very familiar with your penchant for ignoring points you don't like, and pretending they don't exist.

The student hasn't been required to admit their imaginary faith based beliefs in fantasy genders is false. They may be required to in biology class....and at that point, I'll have as much sympathy for them as I do those Christians who don't believe in evolution. Evolution requires sexual dimorphism in mammals so the student will have to learn those facts if it's a quality school.

What's biology got to do with this?

Oh, right...you think biology is a social construct.

Maybe you misunderstood: the judge didn't rule on the student's biology, only what he determined was the student's faith.

Now....do you have any new points to make or will you just keep repeating the ones I've already refuted?

Refute any, and then we'll talk.

-- A2SG, but instead, I'm sure you'll keep assuming you've refuted stuff instead....it's the same game you always play.....

 

[MrMoe]

I don't have one. I'm merely commenting on the story, as requested.

-- A2SG, just being polite over here....

Maybe there isn't one. Or at least there isn't one that will appease both sides.

 

[MrMoe]

Not according to other faith-based rulings. An employer's faith can determine what health care and insurance choices the employee is allowed to get, and some faiths are allowed to deny service to whatever groups they feel offend that faith.

Looks like some faiths are more equal than others.


The students' faith, as determined by the judge, is being denied.

But at least they're not trying to have a cake made. Imagine the furor were that to occur!!


Same reason the teacher is trying to impose hers, when she refused to acknowledge their preferred pronouns, I suppose.


By refusing to acknowledge the students' faith, as determined by the judge, she's infringing their religious freedom to practice their faith as they see fit.


Not according to the story posted in the OP. The school fired her, not the students. The reasons given in the OP article were that her “personal conduct … seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the school district.”

Admittedly, I don't live in Florida, so things may be different there, but I'm not aware that students had the ability to fire school personnel.

Further, I saw nothing in that story that stated the student ever expected the teacher to adopt any beliefs at all. All the student expected was that the teacher not deny their faith, as determined by the judge. That, she did; so the school acted accordingly.


Well, since the judge determined that transgenderism is a "new secular faith," according to his ruling, then this becomes a conflict between two differing faiths.

I guess the rule now is, when two faiths conflict, the winner is whoever the judge deciding the case agrees with.

You okay with that?


The student's faith, as determined by the judge, is being denied, and their right to practice their faith is infringed.


Which is denied the student in this case.


Not really an issue here, since Congress passed no law.


And in the process, the student's freedom to practice their faith, as determined by the judge, was denied.

Looks like, in Florida at least, some faiths are more equal than others. Some faiths apparently get to call students whatever they want to, regardless of the student's faith, and, further, get to determine their employees health care choices and even get to disregard any anti-discrimination laws they wish to, but the second-class faiths are just expected to take it, be quiet, and stay in the back of the bus.

-- A2SG, then again, considering who is in charge down there in Florida, I guess we can't be all that surprised by this.....

I know how the law works, so you can dispense with your usual incorrect and completely unfounded assumptions about me.

In this case, though, I'm talking about how certain faiths are upheld and protected by certain legal rulings. Or, in the case of the student here, not protected.

Unlike the way other faiths are protected.


Yup. Recognized it, and then denigrated it, and then ruled against it, as if that faith doesn't deserve the same degree of protection as the teacher's.


Yeah, that's what the judge ruled. But it seems school policy did require her to respect her student's preference regarding pronouns. She chose to go against that policy, as dictated by her faith, and the judge agreed that her faith was more important than school policy and the faith, as determined by the judge, of her students.

Her faith was more equal that the student's.


But it was the school that required teachers respect student's pronoun preferences, wasn't it? The student didn't make a demand that wasn't in accordance to school policy, did they?

It was Judge Van Laningham who decided her faith superseded school policy. Not the student. Just like in other rulings where some faiths, like employers who don't like their employee's health care choices or service providers who don't like certain segments of society, supersede other's rights.

Seems the idea that some faiths are more equal that others isn't just a Florida thing.


Your bias is noted. But, I'm sure Judge Van Laningham would agree with you, so I guess you're okay here. Some faiths deserve respect and protection under the law, and some don't.


But it is, in this case. The teacher's faith wins, the student's faith doesn't. It just has to sit in the back of the bus and be quiet, being that the faith, as determined by the judge, deserves no respect or legal protection.


She gets to call the student whatever she wants to. The student's faith isn't respected, isn't acknowledged, isn't given the same protection hers is.

But sure, erase that too. You've proven good at ignoring whatever points work against your preconceived ideas.


Yeah, I like the Talking Heads too.

-- A2SG, letting the days go by....

Interesting. When I asked you in another thread if you would accept a judge's ruling on the side of a Christian teacher who refused to use pronouns, you said you saw no reason why you wouldn't. But now that this judge has ruled on the side of this Christian teacher you now have a problem with them "imposing their faith" on the student. Strange that you didn't bring this up then.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I never claimed those other cases were related to this one.

Oh good.

I've made no proclamations at all, nor have I mentioned any faith of my own in any way whatsoever.

You've defended your faith in two threads now.

Clearly.

Why should I respect some lunatics who believe themselves so important that they should even suggest the way I speak to them?

I have no idea when the school instituted whatever policy it has regarding pronoun use, or whether or not this particular student was part of that decision.

No, I'm simply stating the obvious. The school wouldn't know if the teacher violated policy unless the student told them. Who else can know for certain what the student-egomaniac's preferred words were?

Except in this case, where the teacher, and the judge, clearly do favor one over the other, and now the school must follow suit.

No they don't, and you've failed to provide any examples of how.

Refute any, and then we'll talk.

I've refuted all points you've made.

You've made a couple of empty claims you've failed to back up with any evidence.

You claimed....

1. The teacher imposed their faith upon the student, but you failed to provide any examples of this.

2. The judge favored the teacher's faith over the student...but you also failed to provide any examples of this.

Anything else?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting. When I asked you in another thread if you would accept a judge's ruling on the side of a Christian teacher who refused to use pronouns, you said you saw no reason why you wouldn't. But now that this judge has ruled on the side of this Christian teacher you now have a problem with them "imposing their faith" on the student. Strange that you didn't bring this up then.

You may recall on another thread about imposing this stupid pronouns game on employees that it was "no big deal" and "a matter for HR"....to a certain poster.

Now all of a sudden, when the rules return to "you can't impose faith based speech requirements on employees" it's suddenly a big deal lol.

 

[A2SG]

Maybe there isn't one. Or at least there isn't one that will appease both sides.

Probably not.

-- A2SG, compromise has become a thing of the past, like buggy whips and reasoned political discourse....

 

[A2SG]

Interesting. When I asked you in another thread if you would accept a judge's ruling on the side of a Christian teacher who refused to use pronouns, you said you saw no reason why you wouldn't. But now that this judge has ruled on the side of this Christian teacher you now have a problem with them "imposing their faith" on the student. Strange that you didn't bring this up then.

At what point did I say I didn't accept this ruling? I'm commenting on it, as requested, nothing more, nothing less.

-- A2SG, if you don't want to hear my opinions, feel free to ignore them....or, in Ana's case, not specifically ask for them.....

 

[A2SG]

You've defended your faith in two threads now.

I've never said a single word about any faith I may or may not hold, nor have I defended anything of the sort. I'm merely commenting on this issue, as you requested.

Why should I respect some lunatics who believe themselves so important that they should even suggest the way I speak to them?

No one said you should. And you clearly do not. Just like the judge.

No, I'm simply stating the obvious. The school wouldn't know if the teacher violated policy unless the student told them. Who else can know for certain what the student-egomaniac's preferred words were?

It doesn't really matter how the school found out the policy was violated, what matters is that the teacher did violate the policy she was being paid to follow. However, a judge decided her faith was more important than the school policy, so the whole issue is moot anyway.

No they don't, and you've failed to provide any examples of how.

The judge's ruling clearly shows he favored the teacher's faith over the student's faith, as he determined it to be.

I've refuted all points you've made.

You've made a couple of empty claims you've failed to back up with any evidence.

You claimed....

1. The teacher imposed their faith upon the student, but you failed to provide any examples of this.

2. The judge favored the teacher's faith over the student...but you also failed to provide any examples of this.

Anything else?

And you'll continue to claim you've refuted what you haven't actually refuted, no matter how I respond.

It's what you do.

-- A2SG, lather, rinse, repeat, as needed.....

 

[A2SG]

You may recall on another thread about imposing this stupid pronouns game on employees that it was "no big deal" and "a matter for HR"....to a certain poster.

First, while I may not see how it's all that big a deal to use someone's preferred pronouns, clearly a judge in Florida thinks it is, so he ruled that way. This is now how things are in Florida.

Second, the other case involved workplace harassment policy, which is "a matter for HR." This is a different case, and had a different outcome since the judge favored the teacher's faith over someone else's faith.

Different situations, different outcomes.

Not hard to figure out, really.

Now all of a sudden, when the rules return to "you can't impose faith based speech requirements on employees" it's suddenly a big deal lol.

None of it's a big deal really. You asked me to comment, and I did. If you don't want my comments, then don't ask for them.

-- A2SG, you're free to ignore anything I post anyway.....even if you asked for it in the first place....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've never said a single word about any faith I may or may not hold

Right.

No one said you should. And you clearly do not. Just like the judge.

Then why bring it up?

It doesn't really matter how the school found out the policy was violated

Well it seems like the only way they can know is through the student...since it would be the student who would have to explain their pronouns.

The judge's ruling clearly shows he favored the teacher's faith over the student's faith

How? How did he favor the teacher's faith?

There's that claim you keep making but fail to provide evidence for....


See post #53 empty claim #2 that I listed.

You're just repeating yourself again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

First, while I may not see how it's all that big a deal to use someone's preferred pronouns, clearly a judge in Florida thinks it is, so he ruled that way. This is now how things are in Florida.

And?

Second, the other case involved workplace harassment policy, which is "a matter for HR."

It had a suggested policy.

Different situations, different outcomes.

Like those legal cases you mentioned.