PRonoun mandates Unconstitutional

[Manonthestreet]

1A Win: Court Says Law Mandating Trans Pronoun Use A Violation Of Free Speech

A California appellate court ruled Friday that a provision in a state law passed four years ago mandating that certain health care workers use transgender pronouns is a violation of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. CA’s Third District Court of Appeal upended SB 219, which in part...

www.dailywire.com

IS there any reason this wouldnt be true in educational settings too or for that matter any other situation

 

[LuckyDuck]

Clearly the court made the correct decision by defending our Constitutional rights of free speech. Sadly the left/Marxists and others will continue to work at eroding our rights.

 

[JGalt]

Bingo!

"Refusing to use preferred transgender pronouns “may be disrespectful, discourteous, and insulting,” said Judge Duarte, but it allows others “to express an ideological disagreement with another person’s expressed gender identity.”

Being truthful should never be punished, just as lying should not be rewarded.

 

[Dekster]

1A Win: Court Says Law Mandating Trans Pronoun Use A Violation Of Free Speech

A California appellate court ruled Friday that a provision in a state law passed four years ago mandating that certain health care workers use transgender pronouns is a violation of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. CA’s Third District Court of Appeal upended SB 219, which in part...

www.dailywire.com

IS there any reason this wouldnt be true in educational settings too or for that matter any other situation

It is possible they would come down on the side of the weird ones as to schools. Wouldn't be the first time the SCOTUS created special shrink wrap terms of service when it comes to public schools and universities.

 

[White 6]

1A Win: Court Says Law Mandating Trans Pronoun Use A Violation Of Free Speech

A California appellate court ruled Friday that a provision in a state law passed four years ago mandating that certain health care workers use transgender pronouns is a violation of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. CA’s Third District Court of Appeal upended SB 219, which in part...

www.dailywire.com

IS there any reason this wouldnt be true in educational settings too or for that matter any other situation

I had to look it up to find out what a trans pronoun was. I still did not see what they used or wanted them to use, that started the controversy, rising to the California Appellate Court. California is a weird state.

 

[Dekster]

I had to look it up to find out what a trans pronoun was. I still did not see what they used or wanted them to use, that started the controversy, rising to the California Appellate Court. California is a weird state.

It was a facial challenge by a plaintiff called "Taking Offense" which only states that it has at least 1 member and a member that resides in California. It was a lawsuit to challenge the law on its face basically without it having been applied to the plaintiff(s) in a punitive way.

The ruling ( opens as a pdf) https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C088485.PDF

An explanation of facial challenges Differences Between Facial and As-Applied Challenges to the Constitutionality of a Statute

 

[White 6]

It was a facial challenge by a plaintiff called "Taking Offense" which only states that it has at least 1 member and a member that resides in California. It was a lawsuit to challenge the law on its face basically without it having been applied to the plaintiff(s) in a punitive way.

The ruling ( opens as a pdf) https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C088485.PDF

An explanation of facial challenges Differences Between Facial and As-Applied Challenges to the Constitutionality of a Statute

Wow. Thanks for posting that. I am from what I think of as the normal world, probably a conceited point of view. I do not come into contact with transgender people (if I do, they don't make a point of making sure I know) and pretty well try to ignore the issue, being, I suppose fairly provincial in thought and experience. Closest I may have come, was walking into the wrong bar in downtown Louisville, late one night for a drink when I was young, to possibly pick up women. Got halfway to the back, near the stage and realized the couples leaned closely together at the darkened tables were not men and women couples, but mostly same sex. Then realized the chick dancing, that looked good scantily undressed from way back at the bar, getting my drink, was definitely not a chick. I about faced and got the hell out of there, the experience scaring the hell out me at the time, and ducking my head when I hit the door to the street, hoping nobody saw me going in or coming out, while knowing internally that nobody I would know would possibly be around there, if they knew the place, at all. I guess that makes me transphobic/homophobic. They don't enrage me, I just don't understand and see no reason to want to understand or change, as I just don't get it. That said, I don't abuse any, either and that should be enough.
I read legal opinions on here from time to time. That was some well written, logically presented and apparently effective legalese. I have never been in a legal action, unless you count being a juror, but if I am, I hope it is not against a California lawyer. The 1A and 2A case filings I have read on here from California have been impressive. They may have a strange state, with what I would think of as strange people, and strange priorities, but seem to have impressive lawyers aplenty.

 

[Dekster]

Wow. Thanks for posting that. I am from what I think of as the normal world, probably a conceited point of view. I do not come into contact with transgender people (if I do, they don't make a point of making sure I know) and pretty well try to ignore the issue, being, I suppose fairly provincial in thought and experience. Closest I may have come, was walking into the wrong bar in downtown Louisville, late one night for a drink when I was young, to possibly pick up women. Got halfway to the back, near the stage and realized the couples leaned closely together at the darkened tables were not men and women couples, but mostly same sex. Then realized the chick dancing, that looked good scantily undressed from way back at the bar, getting my drink, was definitely not a chick. I about faced and got the hell out of there, the experience scaring the hell out me at the time, and ducking my head when I hit the door to the street, hoping nobody saw me going in or coming out, while knowing internally that nobody I would know would possibly be around there, if they knew the place, at all. I guess that makes me transphobic/homophobic. They don't enrage me, I just don't understand and see no reason to want to understand or change, as I just don't get it. That said, I don't abuse any, either and that should be enough.
I read legal opinions on here from time to time. That was some well written, logically presented and apparently effective legalese. I have never been in a legal action, unless you count being a juror, but if I am, I hope it is not against a California lawyer. The 1A and 2A case filings I have read on here from California have been impressive. They may have a strange state, with what I would think of as strange people, and strange priorities, but seem to have impressive lawyers aplenty.

You're welcome. I googled around trying to sort it out myself. I encounter these sort of alt- people from time to time. I just endeavor not to use any gender words with them. To me it is just good manners. Well before this pronoun thing became the latest political red herring, I have had encounters with a few trans folks pretty much my whole life. There was a black man who dressed as a very flamboyant woman that used to parade all over town. There was also a woman in my neighborhood who did her best to act and be like a man. My mom always told us to just let them be and treat them like we did anybody else. That was just how I was raised. It applied to drunks, homeless people, trans people, shell-shocked people, etc etc.