A Federal Judge from the U.S. District Court in Wyoming ruled that a Christian Activist was not harassing a trans “woman” by listing his name in a sign that read “God created male and female and Artemis Langford is a male.” The activist, Pastor Todd Schmidt, was protesting a decision by the University of Wyoming to force a sorority to allow a male posing as a female to be allowed to become a member. The Judge ruled that the debate could not be made, that a man is not a woman, without mentioning the fact that Langford is a man and not a woman.
The Judge, Senior District Judge Nancy Freudenthal, didn’t go far enough in her ruling in this writer’s opinion. She said in her ruling, “Schmidt’s speech was expressive, with the intent to convey a particular message. Schmidt mentions Artemis Langford by name, but that is unavoidable, as the debate revolves around the propriety of a particular biological male participating in an activity — joining a sorority — traditionally reserved for biological females.”
However, the real issue is this, can any authority compel individuals to call individuals anything they want them to be called? If so, can I compel everyone who meets me to refer to me as “The devout follower of the one true religion, the religion that worships Christ?” Compelling individuals to “recognize” something as profound as having the “freedom” to decide what sex they are (and yes, sex and gender are the same thing, one being a clinical term, sex, and the other being a polite, social term, gender) when they hold to beliefs that don’t align with that assumptions.
This is what the rainbow fascists seek, compelled speech, even if it forces the one being compelled to speak to deny their own true beliefs.
The judge said in the ruling that calling Langford by his birth name was necessary to express his opinion, but that is a high bar that is not found in the first amendment. We are not checked in our expression by whether or not that expression is necessary to express our opinions, nor should it, constitutionally, be considered “harassment” to call anyone by any name one wants.
The Judge showed her limited understanding of the constitution she is sworn to uphold and defend when she said, “Schmidt does not misgender Langford to denigrate her, but to debate a public issue. Normally, mentioning a student by name or ignoring a student’s requested pronouns has low expressive value. Outside of a debate about gender, misgendering is of limited communicative value.”
She would appear ready to classify my or your refusal to call “non-binary” people by the preferred pronouns as harassment unless we were making a “public issue” statement, a high bar for freedom of expression not found in the constitution. She is only a fraction above the seditious nature of the school she rightly chastises, even if she didn’t go nearly far enough in that chastisement.
The school appears committed to finding more loopholes to protect the preferred class of people from the unpreferred class of people with little to no regard for the rule of law of the country this school gets much of its direct, and most of its indirect (in the form of federally guaranteed loans for students) funding from, the United States of America.
It responded to the ruling by stating, “…Providing a forum for free expression and the airing of diverse views is a foundational principle for UW. However, the university must also prioritize protection of its students from unlawful harassment and discrimination. That was the guiding principle in the university’s response to Pastor Schmidt.”
No, the university is not a place to protect students from “unlawful harassment and discrimination” as this school is clearly using that phrase, meaning, no one can be offended by what you say if they come from a special protected class as decided by the elite anti-Americanists who have infiltrated and captured this once American university and turned it into a den of revolutionary socio-fascists.”
It is not unlawful to refuse to call people by any name they want, even if it was the name they were born with. To think that qualifies as harassment, to have a team of lawyers agree that it would be ok for the school to call that harassment, is the fruit of sedition and hate at the heart of that captured university.
4 thoughts on “Christian Activist Cannot be Censored for “Deadnaming” Trans “Woman””