There are similar harassment laws and policies that compel recognition of religion, gender, and ethnicity already in place. How is this any different?
This is the state compelling speech on a matter of immense cultural/religious import. It’s the state requiring a person to declare something they do not believe. The constitutional challenge will be very interesting indeed, with important First Amendment implications. https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1071053666214400000 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Taking a ‘moral’ stand over language related to a child’s painful path of self-identity is the opposite of religious humility
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Seems like a waste of time fighting in court.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What if teacher refused to call a student by a changed name (for example, if "Cassius Clay" changed his name to "Muhammad Ali" and teacher insisted on calling him "Cassius")? IMO, that's about courtesy and respect, and teacher disrespect seems grounds for discipline.
-
Your last sentence qualifies it perfectly. "In your opinion." A name change and a biological reality are not the same.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.