“The State of Florida has not justified this grave restraint, and so the United States Constitution does not tolerate it. Ours is a Union of individuals, celebrating ourselves and singing ourselves and being ourselves without apology.”
Me too! I feel like this quote really shows off the care and humanity of the judge. While you see that throughout other quotes it shows that he isn’t too hung up on technicalities but is really showing his humanity. 11/10
That’s the scandal in all the red states that are in danger of becoming blue. They’re an ever shrinking minority of voters, and when they can’t gerrymander and suppress to tilt the numbers in their favor, they run all the liberals out of town so they can stay red.
Unfortunately, they also tend to be the fastest growing states, so this is unlikely to bite them in the ass any time soon.
In his decision, he refuted several arguments presented by the state, including the claim that Ms. Wood using “Ms.” could “impede her job duties.” He found this assertion to be unfounded, noting instead that as a teacher, Ms. Wood’s students achieved test scores higher than the district average.
This is a problem. It should not matter if Ms. Wood’s students perform above or below average. The first amendment does not have qualifiers related to job performance. Even if she was a terrible teacher, that does not constitute a compelling interest in misgendering someone at work. The argument that it might affect her abilities to teach are wholly without merit, not because she is a good teacher, but because her gender is unrelated to her teaching.
It might be splitting hairs here, but the judge isn’t using that as a qualifier for his ruling, he’s using it to refute FL’s assertion. You’re right that FL should lose automatically based on First Amendment reasons, but one of the criteria for filing an appeal is the probability of success on the merits. Demonstrating that FL’s arguments are provably wrong helps to make the ruling more resistant to an appeal, should FL decide to appeal it.
But see that’s where I think the judge erred. By refuting the assertion with evidence of good teaching, the judge creates a test for future rulings. Proving the argument wrong in this case means that the argument would be valid in other cases. So transgender teachers who’s students are below average don’t have the same rights?
The district has to prove a compelling interest to infringe on the rights of an employee. The burden of proof is on the district, not the teacher, and it should not have been entertained at all.
So the judge can't just say "you can't make that argument" because that would go against the right to due process. He can say "your argument is not based on facts" or he can say the conclusion to arguments make is irrelevant or something else.
In this instance, their argument fell apart because there was no finding of fact to base the argument on.
Agreed. It detracts from the point that misgendering others is a form of hate speech when done intentionally and/or maliciously.
This is reflected within other minority communities as well, who often have to prove that they are demonstrably “better” at whatever field of expertise or topic they wish to engage in to be considered “worthy” of engaging with those who have historically wielded power and authority over said minorities.
That said, the US justice system is in a tumultuous turbulent state right now, and I’m happy to take whatever wins we can for my Trans comrades, no matter how small they may be.
the judge isn’t using that as a qualifier for his ruling, he’s using it to refute FL’s assertion.
Refuting it implies it's worthy of addressing when it is irrelevant.
Not "[She]'s a poor teacher so therefore does not deserve rights." "Actually, she's a good teacher."
But "[She]'s a poor teacher so therefore does not deserve rights." "Shut the fuck up. Fucking fascists."
There are quite a lot of decent people here, some of them are judges. I will agree that we have above-averagely shitty governance, but we are trying to vote as hard as we can!
I get no end of mirth from the notion of remembering how so many “True Conservatives” ™, Enlightened Centrists™, “independents”, (lol) and Never-Trumpers were lecturing me - and anyone else who were laughing and pointing at their grand pronouncements - about how ronnie was going to be the obvious shoe-in for the Republican primary because the Republicans were going to come to their senses because they have realized what a disaster donnie is and how he’s not “really” a conservative, etc…
Add comment