Christian Professor Wins $400,000 Settlement in Compelled Personal Pronouns Case

Good. The Professor in this case even tried to compromise with the student and just address him by his last name but that is not good enough for Trans activists because you must comply with what "They" want or else. I would do the same thing. I would just address them by their name and wait for the inevitable "why don't you use pronouns" bait in which case I would answer, whatever do you mean? I address everyone by name, is there a problem with that?



Link

After a four-year court battle, Shawnee State professor Nicholas Meriwether will receive a clean disciplinary record plus $400,000 in settlement of the lawsuit he brought against the university for disciplining him for refusing to use the “preferred pronouns” of his students that did not match their biological sex.

Prof. Meriwether teaches philosophy at Shawnee State, and by 2018 had been a fixture at the Ohio school for years. He is also a devout Christian. And when gender ideology reared its head at the school, which is a public university, Meriwether got caught in its tentacles.

A male student of his demanded to be called by feminine terms, which contradicted Meriwether’s biblical beliefs about male and female, not to mention his understanding of basic biology. The professor offered a compromise, which was to call the student by his last name, but the student refused, and the university opened an investigation of Meriwether that resulted in a disciplinary letter in his file. That letter would have impaired future hopes of a promotion, and even affect his future employment prospects.

Original 2018 story:

Link

The problem for Christians and other people who don’t buy into the ideology, which denies the biological and objective truth about males and females, is that the culture, and many government entities, won’t allow us to disagree with the gender warriors on college campuses and elsewhere. They have determined to force the rest of us to comply, or else.

a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

Someone oughta' make an Amendment or something to protect that!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

Someone oughta' make an Amendment or something to protect that!

Perhaps they could call it Freedom of Speech or some such?

a reply to: infolurker

the synagogue of Satan are so miserable
(plays track 7 from howard stanton's strange music album. sighs.)
Yup. This is another example why.

Treasures in Heaven.

This is a pretty major win, and it's a win for all of the people in America that are NOT mentally insane.

Those who will be angered by this outcome are a part of a growing group of potentially very dangerous and spiteful child like minds that should not be allowed to proliferate.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

Someone oughta' make an Amendment or something to protect that!

It proves that liberals do not believe in free speech.

The only free speech they believe in is that which 100% supports the liberal point of view, or tows the Democratic Party line.

I don't expect this lawsuit will change the behavior of liberals. They will keep on, keeping on destroying speech that they don't like, it's part and parcel of their ideology and DNA.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

Someone oughta' make an Amendment or something to protect that!

I honestly think it more about controlling the minds of children.
If they can force adults to recognize "pronouns" it will enforce what they have been pushing on the most innocent among us.

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

Someone oughta' make an Amendment or something to protect that!

It proves that liberals do not believe in free speech.

The only free speech they believe in is that which 100% supports the liberal point of view, or tows the Democratic Party line.

I don't expect this lawsuit will change the behavior of liberals. They will keep on, keeping on destroying speech that they don't like, it's part and parcel of their ideology and DNA.

Off topic
I like what you have in the quote section of your avatar. I actully got a polling phone call the other day (first in 49 years) and they asked "if the primaries were held today, who would you vote for the Republican Nominee, Tim Scott, Ron Desantis or Trump?"
I told them "I would have to wait out the debates but as of right now, my money is on Tim Scott."
Now, if we can just get Graham out of office......

a reply to: infolurker

Good for this professor for not caving to the mentally deranged.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

Someone oughta' make an Amendment or something to protect that!

When we start a new country we should be sure to make freedom of speech the first thing addressed in our new constitution so people don’t take it for granted.

a reply to: Notabot12345666

I concur! it shall be the first among many amendments!

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

Someone oughta' make an Amendment or something to protect that!

It proves that liberals do not believe in free speech.

The only free speech they believe in is that which 100% supports the liberal point of view, or tows the Democratic Party line.

I don't expect this lawsuit will change the behavior of liberals. They will keep on, keeping on destroying speech that they don't like, it's part and parcel of their ideology and DNA.

Off topic
I like what you have in the quote section of your avatar. I actully got a polling phone call the other day (first in 49 years) and they asked "if the primaries were held today, who would you vote for the Republican Nominee, Tim Scott, Ron Desantis or Trump?"
I told them "I would have to wait out the debates but as of right now, my money is on Tim Scott."
Now, if we can just get Graham out of office......

My sister, who is a died in the wool Democrat to the point where we almost never talk politics said to me last week "I think I'll vote for Tim Scott if he runs, I like what he has to say." This came about because she asked me who I supported, assuming Trump when I said Tim Scott she looked into him and said definitely him if Biden or any of the other Dems they are discussing are the opponent.

She is getting disgusted with the moral (immoral) stances of the Democratic Party and their brutal shutting down of everyone who disagrees with them. She is upset with the Transgender, teaching graphic sex to kindergartners and elementary kids, and o other weird immoral stands of the Democratic Party, and she loves her gas stove.

a reply to: infolurker

I freaking love the pronoun war. It illustrates something transitive about social doctrine. What is "antinomian" can invert itself, and has inverted itself. Christians are now having to be "against law."

At one point, antinomians argued the nature of the "Holy Spirit" was essentially bastardized by the legalistic approach of the Old Testament, especially the gnostic.

Now the nature of the holy spirit is fundamentally at odds with a society that tries to mandate gender terminology.

This seems like something that should be ultimately ruled on while there is a 6-3 advantage. It needs to go there. There needs to be the first amendment challenge to the compulsory pronoun crap before it becomes nomos to legally charge it as "hate speech" for using the wrong word or your senses to address a person's gender.

This is good precedence. But more people are going to have to take issue with being forced to do something they feel is not necessary or tyrannical to enforce.

This will never get stopped until INDIVIDUAL people (Christian or otherwise) take an antinomian (adversarial) approach.

Food for thought - There are some historical amd literary archetypes that fit. Any one that takes issue with a mandatory double standard/hypocrisy being forced upon them and is willing to self-immolate to maintain their personal ethos above that of the social order. Several that fit.

I feel it shows how much things have inverted themselves.

a reply to: infolurker

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Notabot12345666

I concur! it shall be the first among many amendments!

That was golden man!

People bow to the LGBTQ or BLM or ANTIFa ideology because they are afraid of getting cancelled or caught in a legal problem.

Cowards.

Your children are the target. At least fight for them.

The only thing that holds their delusions together for them is YOUR willingness to play along.

"I'm not a man, I'm a woman!" says the 6' 3", 270lb. gorilla in a wig standing next to you.

It's ENTIRELY preposterous but you play along to get along...

This ends when people stop enabling it.

Period.

+10 to the professor for offering a compromise of just using their name.

I wrongly assumed by the headline that this was going to be both sides being ridiculous and trying to make a point.

Seems the prof went out of his way to try and accommodate and the student put their fingers in their ears and yelled.

As an outside observer who genuinely doesn’t care about either of their stances (trans, religious), seems like a waste of everyone else’s time to sit in a classroom and listen to those two hash out their beliefs. Those colleges aren’t cheap either. But hey, who cares about other peoples time and money as long as you and your problems are addressed I guess.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

All this crap is about is controlling people's speech.

I disagree it is about speech.

It is about controlling PEOPLE. Words are just tools.

SPAM