Is it possible this is an attempt to expand the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Akin to endless lawsuits challenging abortion and whittle away at those rights?
Keep throwing shit at the wall until something sticks.
My son has two middle names, one if whoch is my last name. Like, John Jacob Jones Smith, with “Smith” as his last name. The county birth certificates don’t draw lines between first/middle/last: its just a string of names.
When I enrolled him at his current school, they registered him as having two names, which is common among Hispanic families, but isn’t what we did. It was like pulling teeth to get it fixed. They wanted “proof”. I was like, you have the birth certificate. Eventually they realized that they were being ridiculous and I knew his last name.
Also, for what its worth, he goes by a nickname based on his middle name and this jas caused 0 confusion.
As a teacher, i have no problem lear ing new names for kids. I struggle learning names sometimes (after 20 years, my brain is full!) Bbut variants are not a big deal.
I don’t know how you came to that conclusion, when it literally reads “free exercise”:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~Max
No, the federal act was ruled unconstitutional as applied to the states; presumably this teacher works for the State of Kansas.
~Max
Are you saying that the free exercise of religion is an absolute right?
And Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973 yet here we are today with a much diminished abortion protection in the US via endless court cases challenging those rights.
Clearly there are efforts to chip away at civil rights in this country. And they are succeeding.
No, I’m saying it’s protected by the U.S. constitution.
@Whack-a-Mole, I doubt she (her lawyers) would try and revive the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act when there’s a state law on the books that does effectively the same thing.
~Max
One has to wonder just how dedicated this woman is to her cause.
Lawyers are expensive. Do you think a person on a teacher’s salary was willing to spend many tens of thousands of dollars so she can call one student by a different name?
Or, do you think it more likely she is a test case pushed forward while there is a conservative supreme court?
Do you think a teacher in Kansas decided she needed to spend $100,000 (or more) so she could call a student Susan who wanted to be called Steve?
I’m struggling to see how “call this person by this name” had anything to do with religious freedom. My religion doesn’t include a list of acceptable names, much less does it tell me what i can call YOU. What the hell religion does she follow that restricts what names she’s allowed to call people? And is that religion maybe possibly incompatible with working as a teacher?
I think it is the transgender angle. Not quite sure how that works though. Some names are just male and some female? To hell with all the people named “Chris”?
Susan cannot be Steve in her world.
Then I’m not sure what your point is. I’m aware it’s a constitutional right and I referred to it as such.
What Whack-a-Mole said. From the OP’s link:
IMO Ms. Ricard’s “religion” is “requiring” her to spend waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too much time contemplating her students’ biological sex, especially given that she’s supposed to be teaching them math. Slimy creep.
It’s sad how little her religion actually makes her think about it:
“Thou shalt hate the other.”
I realize she’s upset about the transgender aspect, but i still think any link between what names you use for others and your religion is extremely tenuous.
And in fact, this
Makes it look like her complaint is actually about pronouns, not about names. That’s at least not totally crazy on its face. Transphobic and hateful, sure. Overly concerned with her students’ genitalia, sure. But not blatantly absurd.
Here’s the complaint’s recounting of the bigot’s “religious beliefs”:
" 70. Ms. Ricard believes based on scientific evidence, that children do not have a fully developed capacity to understand the long-term consequences of their decisions.
71. Ms. Ricard wants to protect children from making potentially irreversible and lifechanging decisions that they may later regret. Ms. Ricard believes that, because of the difficulty of assessing matters of gender identity and the long-term irreversible consequences of certain treatments for transgender-identifying people, including puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and sex-reassignment surgery, children should not be encouraged to undertake social or
medical transition because of their inability to assess long-term consequences.
72. Ms. Ricard believes that parents must help children understand the many and complex factors surrounding gender identity.
73. Ms. Ricard believes that educators can assist parents in this effort.
74. Ms. Ricard believes that parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their children.
75. Ms. Ricard believes that any gender-identity education policy must account for this fundamental right.
76. Ms. Ricard believes that any gender-identity education policy that does not account for parents’ fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their children is deceptive and disserves both children and their parents.
77. Ms. Ricard believes educators have free speech and religious freedoms that may be impacted by gender-identity education policy.
78. Ms. Ricard believes that all education policy must protect educators’ fundamental freedoms.
79. Ms. Ricard believes, based on scientific evidence, that there are only two anatomical sex presentations (except in very rare scientifically demonstrable medical circumstances), which are male and female.
80. Ms. Ricard also believes, based on scientific evidence, that scientifically demonstrable and anatomically-correct designations of sex should control access to shared public-school restrooms and locker rooms for minors.
81. For those students who are not comfortable using facilities associated with their anatomical sex, Ms. Ricard supports those students having access to and using a private restroom or locker space.
82. To accommodate the interests of students, parents, and teachers, Ms. Ricard believes that teachers and student peers can—but should not be required to—call a student, who has obtained parental permission, by a derivative of his or her legal name.
83. To accommodate the interests of students, parents, and teachers, Ms. Ricard believes that teachers and student peers can—but should not be required to—refer to a student, who has obtained parental permission, by pronouns that do not correspond to the student’s biological sex.
84. Ms. Ricard is a professing Christian who strives to live out her faith daily.
85. Because of her Christian faith, Ms. Ricard has sincerely held religious beliefs that govern her views about human nature, marriage, gender, sexuality, morality, politics, and social issues.
86. Ms. Ricard’s Christian faith informs her convictions concerning human nature, the purpose and meaning of life, and ethical and moral standards that should govern human conduct.
87. Ms. Ricard’s faith teaches her that God immutably creates each person as male or female; these two distinct, complementary sexes reflect the image of God; and rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person.
88. Ms. Ricard also believes she cannot affirm as true those ideas and concepts that she believes are not true. Doing so, she believes, would violate biblical commands against dishonesty and lying.
89. Ms. Ricard believes that referring to a child using pronouns inconsistent with the child’s biological sex is harmful to the child because it is untrue.
90. Ms. Ricard also endeavors to treat every person with dignity, love, and care, because she believes all people are created in the image of God.
91. Ms. Ricard objects to Defendants’ regulation, suppression, and censorship of her sincerely held religious beliefs.
Of course, I call bullshit on #90, because she clearly doesn’t want to treat transgendered kids with “dignity, love, and care”. But the gist of it is that she feels that having to use a name SHE decides does not fit her gender determination, and having to use pronouns different from what SHE decides is the proper gender is forcing her to lie, which is a sin.
It’s bullshit. Bullshit that courts have steadfastly refused to call out (if the person identifies as Christian that is), but bullshit nonetheless.
In 60’s there was another bigot who clamed his “sincerely held religious beliefs” required him to refuse to serve black customers because racial desegregation “contravened the will of God” . And as late as the 80’s, colleges argued that their “sincerely held religious beliefs” required them to forbid interracial relationships and discrimination against minorities. They were both rejected by the courts.
Maybe they can compromise with Stevie? As in Stevie Nicks / Stevie Wonder? 
What’s the case number?
~Max
5:22-cv-04015. I’ll see if I can find it online for free.
I think this is it: Ricard v. Geary
Thanks, it’s on RECAP.
~Max
Thank you.