Courts Rule For, Against Freedom in Separate Transgender Cases
The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Oregon school was allowed to permit students to use the bathroom of their choice:
[T]here is no Fourteenth Amendment fundamental privacy right to avoid all risk of intimate exposure…
[T]he Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a fundamental parental right to determine the bathroom policies of the public schools to which parents may send their children, either independent of the parental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it.
Ironically, the argument itself presented in the quotations above is neutral. The Court said there is no fundamental right for a person to pick whatever bathroom they want, yet the Court made the moral decision — seemingly out of thin air — to tilt the balance toward kids whose parents allow them to behave as if they are the opposite gender. In other words, the Court granted the “right” to one group elevated their desire to “avoid risk of intimate exposure” over the other.
In another case, an Ohio State Court dismissed the lawsuit brought by Dr. Nicholas Meriwether after he was punished for refusing to address a male student with a female title. The court essentially said Meriwether’s form of address was not protected (presumably, the school could make him call students whatever it wanted). Oddly, it also said he had no adequately “plead facts” to claim his religious or due process rights had been violated.
Finally, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request by a male inmate who wanted female terms used on their rulings and while in court. The reason? The court might give the impression of agreeing with the litigant by adopting their language:
the court may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position
While the 9th Circuit and Ohio State courts ruled for transgenders who wanted to make others accommodate them, the 5th Circuit refused to require the same thing of the judiciary to which they belong.
Consider that: The 5th Circuit essentially said kowtowing to a demand to address male using female terms could create the perception of approval or agreement. Yet other courts require Christians in education to do that very thing — grant the perception of approval or agreement, regardless of personal morals.
And people say allowing people who are confused about their gender to serve in the US military would be a non-event…
All via the Religion Clause.