Submitted by wdcmsnbcgay t3_y9w45i in Pennsylvania
d0s4gw t1_itd87s3 wrote
Reply to comment by capitocoto in A Queer Community Speaks Up for Student After Teacher's Transphobia by wdcmsnbcgay
It’s really not and you could probably see that if you weren’t ideologically possessed and were more interested in a real discussion than the typical bad faith redditor snark. Thanks anyway, I regret trying to engage.
capitocoto t1_itd8dyj wrote
Quite literally the First Amendment applies to the government not arresting you for your speech. It does not apply to your employer firing you for behavior that violates the rule book.
d0s4gw t1_itdcwld wrote
The difference in this situation is that the rule isn’t about what you can’t say. It’s about what you must say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech
The closest example in my opinion is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.
the state did not have the power to compel speech
capitocoto t1_itdf1np wrote
And the state isn’t compelling speech.
If a call center operator decides that he is going to call you Mrs Doubtfire for the entire call, he will be fired. Starbucks employees have been fired for the names they put on a cup.
Employees can be and have been fired for being disrespectful to clients. It can be one of the hardest parts of customer service jobs and any client facing jobs.
It is disrespectful and injurious to misgender a person.
The school has made the decision that if an employee (teacher) misgenders a client (student), that is an offense that can lead to firing.
I am part of compliance in a call center as a hat I wear professionally. If I monitored an employee who was consistently misgendering one of our clients, I would report that. It wouldn’t be my business what happens to them afterward, but it could definitely be a factor that leads to them being fired.
This is not a constitutional issue.
d0s4gw t1_itdfqcj wrote
If the threat of being fired isn’t compulsion then what is it?
capitocoto t1_itdfya6 wrote
So you think employees should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want, on company time and while representing the company, and it should have no effect on their employment status?
d0s4gw t1_itdh7or wrote
No, there are things people can say that can warrant being fired. As an example - https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/houston-teacher-fired-after-racist-comments-were-recorded-during-class
The discussion we’re having is, can there be things that a person doesn’t say that warrants being fired? The court case I linked based in part on the first amendment suggests the precedent says no. It’s pretty clear that this is a constitutional issue, and the school in question also sees it that way because they withdrew the policy.
capitocoto t1_itdl53f wrote
Per the article, the teacher was actively using the wrong pronouns for the student. That goes beyond being compelled to say something - the teacher was actively misgendering the student.
You clearly have zero understand of speech, employment, or grammar.
d0s4gw t1_itdoklc wrote
Try reading more material on the topic. No student was misgendered. And try to stop being such a judgmental prick
capitocoto t1_itdpua4 wrote
Do you not know what misgender means? If you don’t, the dictionary can help.
This teacher refused to gender his student properly which is the very definition of misgendering the student.
d0s4gw t1_itdtv5n wrote
No student was misgendered. The teacher refused to agree to a policy on preferred pronouns. There were no students involved. https://www.timesonline.com/story/news/local/2022/10/06/south-side-school-district-reinstates-teacher-suspended-refusing-to-use-preferred-pronouns-beaver/69544475007/
capitocoto t1_itdw3rj wrote
Where are you getting that information?
Because there is no where in the article that you linked where it says no student was misgendered. It says the superintendent declined to give comment about the case.
Declining to give comment =/= no student got misgendered.
This article states he was suspended because he refused to comply with his employer’s policy
Btw I am greatly amused that you have changed both tactics and goal posts. Your first argument was that this was a First Amendment issue and no one can compel this man’s speech. Now you have abandoned it and your new argument is that because no student was harmed, it shouldn’t be a problem.
A+
d0s4gw t1_itdxkc5 wrote
It’s still a first amendment issue. The teacher was reinstated. You’re a dick.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments