The Pronoun Wars Continue

[longview]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Understanding does not automatically mean capitulating. Someone taking issues seriously enough to study them just might be less likely to change their mind when pressured than someone with a shallow understanding.

There are plenty of conservatives that know full well the narrative that is being put out and reject their premises and their underhanded methods.  Like slowly warming a frog in a pot and finally killing it.  You know, like how Satan goes about relentlessly bringing civilizations down to a smoldering heap (no matter how long it takes).

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

Like slowly warming a frog in a pot and finally killing it. 

Myth...unless there is a cover on the pot or aquarium in my case (wasn’t boiling, but don’t think that made a difference to the four bloated frogs floating on their backs, the fish loved the warmth though...broken thermometer).

Btw, using a myth that can be easily disproven by a few minutes research as support gets a credibility hit from me for the claim that someone invests time and effort into informative research. Just an FYI. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

When time permits, I would recommend reading through the following two articles:

• You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
• Compelled Speech and Pronouns

The first one is an opinion piece by First Amendment Ninja Eugene Volokh (of Volokh Conspiracy fame), and the latter is a blog entry by Josh Blackman - both of which were prompted by incidents similar to those referenced in your OP but about events taking place here in the States.

 

Ah, Volokh.  I've been reading him since law school.  

Your first link is from 2016 (!).  Some excerpts:

Quote

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

That’s the official legal guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights:

Quote

The NYCHRL {New York City Human Rights Law} requires employers{, landlords, and all businesses and professionals} to use an {employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s} preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.

So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.

Yep.

But what does Volokh know?  He's just a Constitutional Law professor at UCLA.

From the second link (published on an attorney's private blog in 2015) :

Quote

Over the summer, the University of Tennessee made some news (here and here) when its Office for Diversity and Inclusion announced that students and faculty should not assume a person’s gender, but rather either inquire about what pronouns a person chooses (“preferred gender pronouns”) or alternatively, use gender-neutral pronouns.

We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems. Transgender people and people who do not identity within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.

In the first weeks of classes, instead of calling roll, ask everyone to provide their name and pronouns. This ensures you are not singling out transgender or non-binary students. The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses. …

A few of the most common singular gender-neutral pronouns are they, them, their (used as singular), ze, hir, hirs, and xe, xem, xyr.

After some controversy, the University made clear that this was mere guidance, and not mandatory.

University spokeswoman Karen Ann Simsen said there is no mandate or official policy to use the language.

“The information provided in the newsletter was offered as a resource for our campus community on inclusive practices,” Simsen said.

The announcement page from the Office for Diversity and Inclusion is no longer available, but it can be found on the Internet Archive.

So long as this was merely guidance, and not something students or faculty could be disciplined over, there are no constitutional problems. However, New York City has taken this policy in a new direction. In policy guidance from the NYC Commission on Human Rights, the De Blasio Administration has determined that “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.”
...
 

Under the guidance, even a single, “intentional,” usage of the wrong pronoun could amount to a violation of the law. Most significantly, the New York policy is binding on private entities, not just city employees (the government as an employer has much more authority to regulate speech than the government as a sovereign).

Recently, the EEOC reached a similar conclusion–that failing to use a person’s preferred pronouns could violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

The Commission has held that supervisors and coworkers should use the name and gender pronoun that corresponds to the gender identity with which the employee identifies in employee records and in communications with and about the employee. See Jameson v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992 (May 21, 2013). Persistent failure to use the employee’s correct name and pronoun may constitute unlawful, sex-based harassment if such conduct is either severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment when “judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the employee’s position. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998); see also Jameson, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992; OPM Transgender Guidance (“Continued intentional misuse of the employee’s new name and pronouns, and reference to the employee’s former gender by managers, supervisors, or coworkers may undermine the employee’s therapeutic treatment, and is contrary to the goal of treating transitioning employees with dignity and respect. Such misuse may also breach the employee’s privacy, and may create a risk of harm to the employee.”). In this case, Complainant had clearly communicated to management and employees that her gender identity is female and her personnel records reflected the same. Yet S3 continued to frequently and repeatedly refer to Complainant by a male name and male pronouns. While inadvertent and isolated slips of the tongue likely would not constitute harassment, under the facts of this case, S3’s actions and demeanor made clear that S3’s use of a male name and male pronouns in referring to Complainant was not accidental, but instead was intended to humiliate and ridicule Complainant. As such, S3’s repeated and intentional conduct was offensive and demeaning to Complainant and would have been so to a reasonable person in Complainant’s position.

Lusardi, EEOC DOC 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756, at *11 (Apr. 1, 2015)

The EEOC position is more moderate than the NYC ordinance, because it requires a “persistent failure ” to use a person’s preferred pronouns. A single “intentional” violation presumably would not be enough.

In any event, neither the EEOC nor the NYC Commission on Human Rights considered how this issue interacts with the compelled speech doctrine of the First Amendment. Justice Souter summarized the doctrine in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston:

“Since all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid,” Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 11 (1986) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original), one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide “what not to say,” id., at 16. Although the State may at times “prescribe what shall be orthodox in commercial advertising” by requiring the dissemination of “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985); see Pittsburgh Press Co. v.Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 386-387 (1973), outside that context it may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees, see Barnette, 319 U. S., at 642. Indeed this general rule, that the speaker has the right to tailor the speech, applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 341-342 (1995);Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 574*574 487 U. S. 781, 797-798 (1988), subject, perhaps, to the permissive law of defamation, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 347-349 (1974); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46 (1988). Nor is the rule’s benefit restricted to the press, being enjoyed by business corporations generally and by ordinary people engaged in unsophisticated expression as well as by professional publishers. Its point is simply the point of all speech protection, which is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969);Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949).

Yeah, the whole "Pronoun Wars" is looking less and less abstract, and more and more particular and real.

More:

Quote

Consider a few hypotheticals. First, assume a state determines that denying that humans are contributing to climate change is extremely dangerous to the environment, and to the residents of the state. Indeed, witnesses testify before the legislature that they feel “unsafe,” and threatened when climate-change-deniers spout off ignorance, and it harms an “inclusive” society. The state determines that climate-change-denialism is a scourge that must be eradicated because of how it makes other people feel, and must be treated no differently than people who use racial epithets or derogatory language. Therefore, the state passes a law that prohibits people from openly advocating that climate change is caused by man. They can think whatever they want, but they can’t vocalize it. (This isn’t too far from reality). Would anyone for a minute think that such a law could pass constitutional muster? Of course not. Forcing someone who wants to speak about climate change to endorse a theory they reject,or stay silent would be compelled speech. It is not enough to tell them to talk about another topic, if they wish to avoid feeling compelled.

For a second hypothetical, substitute “there is no man-made climate change” with “the Sun revolves around the Earth.” The state passes a law prohibiting people from talking about the geocentric model. Let’s say a person thinks Copernicus was wrong, and Ptolemy had it right, and goes around preaching that message. Could the state punish someone who publicly rejects the heliocentric model? Of course not. No matter how stupid a person’s idea is–no matter how inconsistent with science it is–a person can express his opinions, regardless of how wrong they are, or how it make others feel. If they want to talk about astronomy, they should not be faced with the choice of heliocentrism or silence.

I'm curious if any of the folks who are in favor of compelled speech are willing to address these hypotheticals.

Quote

Back to the topic at hand. New York City’s policy defines gender identity as non-binary:

one’s internal deeply-held sense of one’s gender which may be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth. One’s gender identity may be male, female, neither or both, e.g., non-binary. Everyone has a gender identity. Gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation.

Requiring covered entities to use gender-neutral pronouns, or to use a person’s preferred gender pronouns, is consistent with a non-binary view of gender.

But what about people who reject the notion that gender is non-binary; or to avoid double negatives, view gender as binary? That is, gender is defined by what genitalia and chromosomes a person has at birth. Perhaps to the staff at the NYC Commission on Human Rights, or the Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusion, such an idea is absolutely outlandish and contrary to every scientific consensus–on par with a geocentric model of the universe. But that is legally irrelevant. The question of whether speech is entitled to First Amendment protection in no way depends on the correctness or offensiveness of the idea. Even if the entire scientific community concurs that gender is not binary, but exists along a spectrum, people who espouse views contrariwise are still protected by the First Amendment.

Pretty decent points, these.

Quote

Consider another hypothetical. Sam rejects the scholarly consensus and firmly believes that a person born with male genitalia is a man, and nothing can be done to change that. To demonstrate his philosophy, Sam uses male pronouns to refer to a transgender individual, Pat, who prefers female pronouns. Sam does not do this out of hate or animus, or as a means to antagonize Pat, but as a reflection of Sam’s view of gender being binary. However, whenever Sam uses male pronouns, it hurts and marginalizes Pat. Pat brings suit under the NYC Human Rights Law. Sam counters that he does not believe Pat can ever be a woman, no matter what the court tells him, and refuses to use language consistent with what he perceives as a false-reality. Unlike talking about astronomy, Sam says it is impossible to converse in the English language without using pronouns, and he refuses to change his manner-of-speaking. The court finds that Sam violated the law, assesses significant monetary fines ($125,000 for a single violation), and issues an order that Sam is required to only use female pronouns concerning Pat.

In one respect, the court is not only ordering him to stop using language (pronouns) that offends Pat, but also to affirmatively use language (pronouns) that he believes to be untrue. It forces Sam to recognize Pat as a female, even though he firmly believes that is not the case. Again, the outlandishness or offensiveness of an idea, or whether it goes against scientific consensus, is legally irrelevant.

Yep.  That's a point I've been trying to make on this thread.

Quote

This strikes me as potentially more problematic than a recent Massachusetts court decision that forced a landlord to take classes to learn about the Islamic faith, or an order that a baker that refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings must undergo sensitivity training. (The former is currently being considered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court). Not only is Sam being forced to change his views about gender, but he is forced to publicly acknowledge them.

Yep.

That's a big problem with compelled speech.

Quote

One last hypothetical. The state passes a law that imposes a fine if you refuse to call the spouse of a same-sex couple a “husband” a “wife.” Under the state’s law, same-sex couples can opt to be recognized as unions of husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife (or as Spouse #1 and Spouse #2). Sam does not deem same-sex marriage as “legitimate,” regardless of what the Supreme Court determined, and does not consider partners in such a legal union as husbands of wives. He seeks to continue what Justice Kennedy referred to in Obergefell as an “open and searching debate.” As a result, Sam refuses to refer to Pat and Val as wives. The couple brings suit, and the court fines Sam for a violation of the ordinance, and requires him to refer to both partners in the union as “wife” and “wife.” Would this order be lawful? Could the state force Sam to refer to Pat and Val as wives, even if he does not think they are?

That's an interesting question.

Quote

In Wooley v. Maynard, the Court found that a person could not be compelled to display the slogan “Live Free or Die” on a license plate: “The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.” As the Court held in Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, “Mandating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech.” Such a regulation is subject to strict scrutiny. It also irrelevant that as a matter of law and fact the two are “wife and wife.” As the Court explained in Riley, the prohibition on compelled speech applies equally with respect to  “compelled statements of opinion” and “compelled statements of ‘fact‘: either form of compulsion burdens protected speech.”

I  am reminded of Justice Jackson’s famous declaration: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Good points, these.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You mean the Republicans?  Just kidding. Don't ban me.  

I thought you were going to say Texans.  

 

Quote

By enforcing their POV I assume you're not talking about a baker refusing to bake a cake for a specific clientele but rather the customer who legally filed suit, right? 

No, I was talking about the California case referenced in the OP. 

 

Quote

I don't have a problem with respect and courtesy.

Good. I'd be concerned if you did.

Oh, I have many problems. Politeness just happens to not be one of them...except on message boards.  

 

Quote

I do, however, have a problem with using the power of government to punish people for their speech. 

Cool.

Agreed.

 

Quote

Take, for example, the Church's recent counsel regarding use of the word "Mormon." 

If I tell you that I prefer to be called a Latter-day Saint it would certainly be nice for you to accommodate that request.

Agreed. I do my best for that exact reason.

I think most people do the same. 

 

Quote

But I would never in a million years think that it would be okay to fine or jail you for failing to do so. 

I agree. Those kinds of rare instances seem to be exaggerated to induce fear. Are you aware of any bills pending right now that will throw you in jail for using the wrong pronoun? Or is it just something to rile people up about?

The California case referenced in the OP carries a potential penalty of up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail.

The New York case referenced in the articles I pointed out to smac didn't involve jail but did include "civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct." That's a pretty significant...incentive. 

 

Quote

I am curious though. Can someone give me a valid explanation why someone would knowingly and willfully continue to use an unwanted pronoun for someone?

Perhaps one happens to reject the notion that gender is non-binary.

If one believes that gender is defined by what genitalia and chromosomes a person has at birth, then I can understand such a person not wanting to be coerced into using words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy.

 

Quote

Doing so kind of sounds like bully behavior, or at the very least, very jerkish.

Perhaps it might be perceived that way.

Then again, the same might be said of those those who would use the power of government to force someone to affirmatively use language (pronouns) that one believes to be untrue.

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes. I would. If a transgender person asks me to call them by a certain pronoun I will do my best to do that. Why? Because it would be totally rude and hostile to call him something she doesn't like. 

Even though I may not fully understand what it means or how it feels to be transgender, I would do my best to help that person feel accepted and respected.

The question is, why wouldn't you? What do you gain by refusing to call the person by their preferred pronoun? 

I have very mixed feelings about this.  I have 2 family members somewhere in the middle of this.

On the one hand I absolutely have no problems calling them the name they want to be called.  Or what they want to wear.  Or what career or hobbies or colors they want etc.  Who cares if someone likes things that typically the opposite sex likes.

I have no problem calling each of them "they" and in fact have wanted a neutral pronoun for a long time just to make writing easier.

But the sex specific pronouns are much more difficult for me.  I feel that transitioning physically and to an extent even mentally and emotionally could be very damaging to the people who do it.  To my loved ones. 

I understand what Seeking says about his aunt and I can't imagine how hard that must be for her, but I also desperately worry about so many going through the process who shouldn't be.  

So if I started to use the pronouns it feels like I am saying it is ok to hurt themselves in such a drastic way.  

So far I have been able to avoid it by saying names and saying "they", but I worry that at some point I will have to go one way or another and I honestly don't know which will be better.

Quote

 

And regarding your "cream puff" comment... Give this a watch  

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=detail&mid=F27270BEA89EE90EE762F27270BEA89EE90EE762&q=modern+family+cream+puff&shtp=GetUrl&shid=6f61918a-a651-40dd-bf2a-7550c59b3adc&shtk=Q3JlYW1wdWZmIFNuZWFrIDktMjMgLSBNb2Rlcm4gRmFtaWx5&shdk=Q2FtZXJvbiBhbmQgTWl0Y2hlbGwgYnJpbmcgdGhlaXIgbmV3IGFkb3B0ZWQgY2hpbGQgaG9tZSBmcm9tIFZpZXRuYW0uIEZvciBtb3JlIHZpZGVvLCB2aXNpdCBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5jb20%3D&shhk=Pv0GVN8XKsM0HtbAIS2WSodcqLFq9eeKMBD90Wt4zPQ%3D&form=VDSHOT&shth=OSH.y%2BORUDHptb8R2izLSIxQkw

 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Rain

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand why this has to be a "war". If someone prefers to be known by a certain pronoun, it would seem the respectful and courteous thing to call them by that pronoun.

I know a young man named Robert. He prefers to be known as Bubba. I personally don't like "Bubba" as a name, but it doesn't really matter what I like or don't like. So I call him Bubba. Once I'm aware it would be rude to purposely call him something other than what he likes. And I don't consider that a war on "given names".

Everyone should have their choice.  I personally don't want to be part of validating the whole issue.  They have a right to live as they want but I don't want to play.  If someone believes they are Jesus and wants me to address them as Lord, I am not going to do it.  We all have a right to use the words we want to use and not be forced to saying on word over another.

[smac97]

Breaking news from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Quote

Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University

Description:  Shawnee State University officials punished philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether because he declined a male student’s demand to be referred to as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns (“Miss,” “she,” etc.). Although the philosophy professor offered to use any name the student requested, the university rejected that compromise, choosing instead to force the professor to speak and act contrary to his own Christian convictions and philosophical beliefs.

6th Circuit upholds First Amendment rights of Shawnee State professor

ADF attorneys represent philosophy professor punished for declining to speak message contrary to his beliefs

Friday, Mar 26, 2021

CINCINNATI – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled Friday in favor of Dr. Nicholas Meriwether, a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University, reversing a district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against university officials. The university punished Meriwether because he declined a male student’s demand to be referred to as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns. The court ruled that, based on the allegations in the complaint, the university violated Meriwether’s First Amendment rights.

“This case forced us to defend what used to be a common belief—that nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch. “We are very pleased that the 6th Circuit affirmed the constitutional right of public university professors to speak and lead discussions, even on hotly contested issues. The freedoms of speech and religion must be vigorously protected if universities are to remain places where ideas can be debated and learning can take place.”

“Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom,” the 6th Circuit wrote in its opinion in Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University. “They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the professor’s free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse.”

In January 2018, during a political philosophy class, Meriwether responded to a male student’s question by saying, “Yes, sir.” After the class, the student approached Meriwether, stated that he was transgender, and demanded that the professor refer to him as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns. When Meriwether did not instantly agree, the student became belligerent and promised to get Meriwether fired.

The student then filed a complaint with the university, which launched a formal investigation. Meriwether offered to call the student by first or last name, but the student insisted that Meriwether use pronouns and titles consistent with the student’s gender identity. University officials ultimately rejected any compromise that would allow Meriwether to speak according to his conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs. Instead, they formally charged him, saying “he effectively created a hostile environment” for the student simply by declining to use the feminine pronouns demanded by the student. Later, they placed a written warning in his personnel file and threatened “further corrective actions” unless he articulates the university’s ideological message.

The 6th Circuit explained that if “professors lacked free-speech protections when teaching, a university would wield alarming power to compel ideological conformity. A university president could require a pacifist to declare that war is just, a civil rights icon to condemn the Freedom Riders, a believer to deny the existence of God, or a Soviet émigré to address his students as ‘comrades.’ That cannot be.”

Boy, there are days I love being an American!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Breaking news from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Boy, there are days I love being an American!

Thanks,

-Smac

🥳 Huzzah!

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Breaking news from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Boy, there are days I love being an American!

Thanks,

-Smac

So a guy hired to do a job refused a request when one of the people who paid his salary asked him to do something. His employers thought it was a danger to the company’s image and he got fired. This is pretty normal in the United States. Why are you acting like this is some alarming anomaly?

Then an activist judge reversed the decision. That part is admittedly a bit of an anomaly.

Edited March 27, 2021 by The Nehor

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then an activist judge reversed the decision. That part is admittedly a bit of an anomaly.

Read the actual court opinion. The school was actively hostile against his religious beliefs.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/Meriwether6thCircuitOpinion.pdf

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So a guy hired to do a job refused a request when one of the people who paid his salary asked him to do something.

Not all requests are reasonable.

The student making the request wasn't content with merely having the professor stop referring to him with male pronouns. He demanded that the professor affirmatively start using female pronouns.

And no amount of reasonable middle-ground was even up for discussion (i.e., the professor's willingness to simply refer to the student by name).

No, it was my way or the highway. Does that really sound like a 'reasonable' request to you?

 

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In California, if you run a nursing home you have to refer to your paying clients with their preferred gender pronouns. 

imagine a similarly situated chef in the Deep South. She considers each dish a creation and a work of art (or speech). By law if she runs a business she is forced to serve all regardless of protected class. So if a person of color walks in she is required by law to serve them. Somehow despite this overly restrictive law we have gotten along just fine and some might even say, we’ve improved. 

I don't think that analogy is similarly situated at all.

A more apt situation would be if the law were to require the chef to refer to each customer by their preferred racial title. Say, for example, if a Hispanic patron wanted to be referred to as a "Sun Person," or a Jewish patron wished to be called "rav," etc.

You know, I was watching a show the other day where one of the main characters - portrayed by a black actor - introduces himself to everyone he meets as Sheriff Thompson, but then tells everyone that he prefers to be called "Big Black."

The other characters in the show obviously don't want to call him that due to the racial undertones (which, for comedic purposes, the character himself seems oblivious to). 

If the presumptively white business owner in your example above were to refuse to call her patrons "Big Black" or "My Nig" or some other racially charged title, do you think the law should punish her for doing so?

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Amulek

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't think that analogy is similarly situated at all.

Please explain why. Each involves government compelled speech. I guess in this case you just agree its a good idea? Seems exactly analogous. The teacher is compelled to use his speech in a situation that he is religiously opposed to. Same with the restaurant chef. Sure it's speech that they were using anyway (same as the pronouns), they just had to broaden who they applied it to. 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Everyone should have their choice.  I personally don't want to be part of validating the whole issue.  They have a right to live as they want but I don't want to play.  If someone believes they are Jesus and wants me to address them as Lord, I am not going to do it.  We all have a right to use the words we want to use and not be forced to saying on word over another.

Do you expect people to refer to you by your legal or preferred name? Or do you allow people to refer to you by name they deem appropriate for you?

[longview]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So a guy hired to do a job refused a request when one of the people who paid his salary asked him to do something. His employers thought it was a danger to the company’s image and he got fired. This is pretty normal in the United States. Why are you acting like this is some alarming anomaly?

Then an activist judge reversed the decision. That part is admittedly a bit of an anomaly.

Only an Orwellian enforcer of a collectivist state (tyranny) would talk like this.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

Only an Orwellian enforcer of a collectivist state (tyranny) would talk like this.

Why? Does that make this board an "Orwellian enforcer of a collectivist state (tyranny)?" Or the LDS Church an "Orwellian enforcer of a collectivist state (tyranny)?" 

Who gets to decide the rules of a business, or forum, or church? When can those rules be protected and when can they be overridden?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't think that analogy is similarly situated at all.

Please explain why.

Because it conflates non-expressive conduct with pure speech. 

 

Quote

Each involves government compelled speech.

No they don't.

I get that you think differently, but you are mistaken.

 

Quote

I guess in this case you just agree its a good idea?

I think most of what has been accomplished with public accommodation laws has been good. I do have some remote political misgivings about them, but this isn't really the forum to get into that.

 

Quote

Seems exactly analogous.

Only because you don't know any better. 

The analogy that actually fits is the one I reframed for you. You know, the one that you dodged - just like all the other sincere questions I've seen asked of you that you don't want to deal with. 

 

Quote

The teacher is compelled to use his speech in a situation that he is religiously opposed to.

No, the teacher is literally being compelled to say something that he doesn't want to say. It's a complete violation of his First Amendment rights. 

It would be like telling a 7th Day Advantest professor that he has to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because he's just being "compelled to use his speech in a situation that he is religiously opposed to."

If that were really the case then the First Amendment would become a dead letter.

Heaven forbid that should ever happen.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you expect people to refer to you by your legal or preferred name?

I don't expect it so much that I would use the force of government to punish people for failing to do so. 

 

Quote

Or do you allow people to refer to you by name they deem appropriate for you?

When I was back in college, I would routinely call my classmates not by their names but by some distinctive feature about them: "Hey, red shirt!" or "Pst...blue hat!" 

There was a guy in one of my classes who, rather than cutting his hair, curled it to make it short enough to skate by the honor code enforcers. I called him 'new perm' for the rest of the semester.

So far as I know, none of them ever took any sort offence to it (e.g., no funny looks or anything). It was surprisingly effective. In fact, I sometimes even witnessed the behavior catch on. 

 

 

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, longview said:

Only an Orwellian enforcer of a collectivist state (tyranny) would talk like this.

That is ridiculous. I didn’t even use the word “Goodthink”. I am getting sick of all the Orwell references from people who I keep suspecting have never actually read Orwell. It is also odd that they want to pull Orwell in as a kind of supporter when Orwell would have despised their own politics.

Edited March 27, 2021 by The Nehor

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't expect it so much that I would use the force of government to punish people for failing to do so. 

Failure is one thing, refusal is another. 

Example: you send your child to school. The school does not like his name, picks another one for him. Neither you or you child want him to to be addressed that way.

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

When I was back in college, I would routinely call my classmates not by their names but by some distinctive feature about them: "Hey, red shirt!" or "Pst...blue hat!" 

There was a guy in one of my classes who, rather than cutting his hair, curled it to make it short enough to skate by the honor code enforcers. I called him 'new perm' for the rest of the semester.

So far as I know, none of them ever took any sort offence to it (e.g., no funny looks or anything). It was surprisingly effective. In fact, I sometimes even witnessed the behavior catch on. 

 

When I was at BYU, there were two names which were very common among the females. Many of us were given nicknames by our peers. I had two which I liked. Sometimes people have tried to call be a common version of my name, which I deeply dislike. I simply told them I don't like it, and it never stuck.

 If your classmates had asked you to call them their actual name or "purple" instead, would you?

Did you ever have someone persist in calling you by a nickname after you said you didn't want them to use it? 

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/23/2021 at 12:53 PM, Damien the Leper said:

Could be worse. We can force our personal religion on children from the day they are born. 

A devoutly religious upbringing is in no way comparable to choosing to change a 5- or 6-year-old's s*x for that child.  I think you know that, and, honestly, I'm disappointed.  I expect better of you.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Not all requests are reasonable.

The student making the request wasn't content with merely having the professor stop referring to him with male pronouns. He demanded that the professor affirmatively start using female pronouns.

And no amount of reasonable middle-ground was even up for discussion (i.e., the professor's willingness to simply refer to the student by name).

No, it was my way or the highway. Does that really sound like a 'reasonable' request to you?

 

No. It was just a legal request.

Honestly I suspect the student is a colossal peacocking jerk who deliberately baited a professor the student was sure would react the way the professor did. I also suspect the professor was a colossal arrogant jerk who was already in trouble with the university administration. I haven’t been in academic circles for a while but the fact that the administration was willing to drop him that quickly makes me suspect they were looking for an excuse to dump the professor. The student looks like they deliberately tried to make this an actionable offense and it looks premeditated which suggests the student knew how the professor would react.

In other words I have virtually no sympathy for anyone involved and don’t much care if they suffer due to what happened. A plague on both your houses.

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So a guy hired to do a job refused a request when one of the people who paid his salary asked him to do something. His employers thought it was a danger to the company’s image and he got fired. This is pretty normal in the United States. Why are you acting like this is some alarming anomaly?

Then an activist judge reversed the decision. That part is admittedly a bit of an anomaly.

"The people who paid his salary"?  Who are they?

[longview]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why? Does that make this board an "Orwellian enforcer of a collectivist state (tyranny)?" Or the LDS Church an "Orwellian enforcer of a collectivist state (tyranny)?" 

Who gets to decide the rules of a business, or forum, or church? When can those rules be protected and when can they be overridden?

Your points are very disjointed.  You and I and everybody on this board know there are a wide variety of views of all kinds.  I am using the term "enforcer" along the same line as a mob crime family where the Godfather runs a large operation with his soldiers who enforce their ill-gotten gains by punishing insiders that stray from strict obedience to the mob and hurting or murdering outsiders that threaten their conspiracy.  This description is very applicable to every communist dictatorship throughout history (some of them even make themselves out to be god).

As for the Church, many leaders have warned against the ever increasing encroachments of socialism and communism.  A few of the prophets have specifically warned of combinations that work for the enslavement of the world.  Some, like President Marion G Romney have counseled against the "narcotic of socialism" (gullible gulls) - - - read https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/06/the-celestial-nature-of-self-reliance?lang=eng

Who gets to decide? Not the radical professors.  Not the social engineers.  Not the judges that legislate from the bench.  Not the paid street thugs.  Not the cronyism that subvert the will of the people.  Not those that sneer at the Constitution and make end runs around it (even while sometimes paying lip service to it).

[longview]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is ridiculous. I didn’t even use the word “Goodthink”. I am getting sick of all the Orwell references from people who I keep suspecting have never actually read Orwell. It is also odd that they want to pull Orwell in as a kind of supporter when Orwell would have despised their own politics.

You are squirming in the hot seat.