What would you say are the fundamental cultural differences between the Midwest and Appalachia, specifically between Cleveland and Pittsburgh? I agree the geography is different but culturally they feel roughly identical.

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

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/

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

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.

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

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

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.

That’s not even remotely what I said. Calling someone he or she is not the same as calling someone a whore.

If you’re actually interested in a discussion, then I’ll play along.

I’m just guessing but guessing the Christian argument could be something along the lines of man and woman are creations of God and to try to change one’s sex is to deny that God’s creation is “good”. I think it has less to do with the pronouns per se and more to do with the concept that sex is mutable.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%3A4-25&version=ESV

“then the Lord God formed the man of (D)dust from the ground and (E)breathed into his (F)nostrils the breath of life, and (G)the man became a living creature”

“20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a (S)deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

It’s kind of weak, but I could see it being connected to that.

I think the 1st amendment argument is much stronger and more directly related to the pronouns themselves. No one can force someone else to say something. Period. There’s really not even a need to explain why. There’s no compulsory speech. Maybe it’s rude or insensitive but there’s no laws against those. I could see that potentially being against a code of conduct at a private business and could justify firing someone, but public education is government, so again it would be the government compelling speech. Plus it’s not a slur or hate speech exactly so I think it’s probably protected. Unless there’s precedent for hate speech being dependent on context that I’m not aware of.