Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

capitocoto t1_itdf1np wrote

Reply to comment by d0s4gw in A Queer Community Speaks Up for Student After Teacher's Transphobia by wdcmsnbcgay

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.

1

d0s4gw t1_itdfqcj wrote

If the threat of being fired isn’t compulsion then what is it?

0

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?

1

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.

1

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.

1

d0s4gw t1_itdoklc wrote

Try reading more material on the topic. No student was misgendered. And try to stop being such a judgmental prick

1

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.

1

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/

0

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+

1

d0s4gw t1_itdxkc5 wrote

It’s still a first amendment issue. The teacher was reinstated. You’re a dick.

1