Teacher Imprisoned As Result Of Wrong Pronouns

[Scott777]

Sometimes this forum really could use a facepalm or laughter icon.

You can borrow mine, but I want them back.  🤣  🤦‍♂️

[Scott777]

So why use such a ridiculous example, do you see being black as a negative?
If you'd give the example of being gay in a highly religious school it would have made a little more sense, but still the school would have been committing a crime.
Are you one of these Westborough Baptist church kind of people?

If it's ridiculous, you should be able to explain it.  Or just admit that courts do judge the reasons for applying an order.  I'm an atheist.  Do you see being black as a negative?

[Nalaar]

I don't doubt they do.

But are their principles really worth the time effort and expense they're putting others to?

It's a simple tick-box answer — Yes / No...

The answer is individualist, therefore the answer for the individuals that do is yes. 

[Nick]

That was a classic in the art of missing the point, and not correct anyway.  A school could change their rules.  And yes, they could be illegal.  Well then the court would judge it not possible to make an injunction.

So why use such a ridiculous example, do you see being black as a negative?
If you'd give the example of being gay in a highly religious school it would have made a little more sense, but still the school would have been committing a crime. 
Are you one of these Westborough Baptist church kind of people?

[srb7677]

No I'm not conflating or equating anything.  Quite the opposite.  I'm saying a court must be distinguishing between the different rules, and judging which ones are allowed.  Racist rules would presumably not be allowed.  Therefore a court has the ability to refuse an injunction, and yet it chose to make the injunction for rules which are absurd.

Sometimes this forum really could use a facepalm or laughter icon.

[Scott777]

A totally nonsensical argument, A) that would be a crime and B) the school would have hired him whilst he was black, he isn't going against a new rule.

That was a classic in the art of missing the point, and not correct anyway.  A school could change their rules.  And yes, they could be illegal.  Well then the court would judge it not possible to make an injunction.

[Scott777]

You are conflating what someone is with what someone does and assuming a false equivalence. If a school had rules about not being black, it is the school that would likely be in the dock.

No I'm not conflating or equating anything.  Quite the opposite.  I'm saying a court must be distinguishing between the different rules, and judging which ones are allowed.  Racist rules would presumably not be allowed.  Therefore a court has the ability to refuse an injunction, and yet it chose to make the injunction for rules which are absurd.

[Scott777]

Same as someone who gets done for D&D. They don't lose their license because they'd been drinking, they lose their license because they chose to drive. So no, using the wrong pronouns didn't result in him going to jail, disobeying a court order did that.

They lose their license because they chose to drink AND drive, not because they drank, or because they drove.  (The clue is in the term D&D).

[Scott777]

But are their principles really worth the time effort and expense they're putting others to?

It's a simple tick-box answer — Yes / No...

The principle is: should words be prohibited by employees, and then backed with the threat of jail, just because someone doesn't agree with them?  Do you think yes / no?

[Nick]

Just curious to know, if the school suspended a teacher because he is black, would a court make a court order?  I suspect there must be some sort of judgement.

A totally nonsensical argument, A) that would be a crime and B) the school would have hired him whilst he was black, he isn't going against a new rule. 

[srb7677]

No, you have entirely misrepresented what I said.  I didn't equate anything.  If a court would have to judge on a racist decision to suspend an employee for being black, then it must mean they do judge the reason for suspension.  Then Cromwell would be wrong about them not judging the reason.

I will put it even more simply. You are conflating what someone is with what someone does and assuming a false equivalence. If a school had rules about not being black, it is the school that would likely be in the dock. And how would the black person ever have got a job there in the first place without challenging the school in the first place?

Like I said you are comparing apples with chicken carcasses and imagining a false equivalence. It tends to be what right wing culture warriors do.

[Nick]

You are right in that the court order did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because of refusal by a person to betray the truth by using incorrect pronouns.
As the topic suggests, he was imprisoned AS A RESULT of using "wrong" pronouns.
In whose opinion were those pronouns "wrong"?

Same as someone who gets done for D&D. They don't lose their license because they'd been drinking, they lose their license because they chose to drive. So no, using the wrong pronouns didn't result in him going to jail, disobeying a court order did that. 

[patman post]

Because they have principles?

I don't doubt they do.

But are their principles really worth the time effort and expense they're putting others to?

It's a simple tick-box answer — Yes / No...

[Scott777]

But what I don't understand is why something so trivial to those who are not personally affected by the particular gender/non-gender personal pronouns some other people choose/prefer to use and be known by, should result in so much wasted time, effort and expense — to themselves and, ultimately, to the public purse...

Because they have principles?

[Scott777]

So you are trying to equate being black - something innate and not susceptible to personal choice - with a decision to choose not to conform with a set policy behaviourally laid down by your employer? Talk about comparing apples with chicken carcasses, .

Silly argument as ever from you.

No, you have entirely misrepresented what I said.  I didn't equate anything.  If a court would have to judge on a racist decision to suspend an employee for being black, then it must mean they do judge the reason for suspension.  Then Cromwell would be wrong about them not judging the reason.