An Ohio federal court has found that “misgendering” – refusal to participate in gender ideology – is not protected by the First Amendment and there are no religious exceptions.

The decision was made on the recommendation of Jewish Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz, and upheld by Judge Susan J. Dlott in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The complaint was filed in November 2018 by Shawnee State University philosophy professor Nicholas Meriweather. According to Meriweather, he was reprimanded by administrators at his publicly funded school after a man pretending to be a woman joined his class and began demanding to be referred to as “she” and “ms.”

Meriweather refused to participate in the ideological exercise, but did not “misgender” the student either. Instead, he attempted to compromise and address the student only by his surname. In response the transgender student began threatening him and calling him names, finally enlisting administrators to punish him.

Meriweather took Shawnee State to court, stating that his religious beliefs forbade him from pretending men are women and that he had a First Amendment right to refuse the new arbitrary transgender cultural imposition. In a landmark ruling, Litkovitz and Dlott dismissed the case, stating that “His speech — the manner by which he addressed a transgender student — was not protected by the First Amendment.”

The September 2019 recommendation report by Litkovitz asserts that a public employee’s willingness to participate in gender ideology is not protected by laws and precedents intended to protect faculty speech, the assumption being that transgenderism is an immutable characteristic apparently granting the movements adepts to special Civil Rights act privileges that supersede individual personal conscience. According to Litkovitz’s Orwellian logic, using a person’s made up pronouns “cannot reasonably be construed as having conveyed any beliefs or stated any facts about gender identity.”

Litkovitz also found no evidence that religious discrimination played a role in compelling Meriweather to say things he doesn’t believe.

The original lawsuit demonstrates shocking discrimination against the plaintiff’s religious views. In one case, SSU acting chairperson and defendant Jennifer Pauley stated in a meeting with Meriweather that “religion oppresses students,” “adherents to Christianity are motivated primarily out of fear,” and that Christians like the plaintiff should not be allowed to teach courses on religion and philosophy.

Unfortunately for Meriweather, the political beliefs of the activist judges in conjunction with the firepower of “Big Law” groups defending Shawnee State mean that tyranny has now been codified into American law.

Transgender Storm Over the Anglophone World

The bizarre and unilateral decision to abolish concepts of male and female has caused the public to roll its eyes and scratch its head, but thanks to the power of billionaires and plutocrats in the Anglosphere and the failure of conservatives to stop them, it is being imposed whether people want it or not.

Recently in the United Kingdom, a woman was arrested and found guilty of “misusing social media” when she “misgendered” a transsexual on the internet.

In Lincolnshire, Justice Julian Knowles acknowledged that Britain is an intellectually stifling draconian police state, but upheld the right of secret police to arrest and surveille people for “transphobia” and various other -phobias and -isms — an act of judicial cowardice.

In Canada, refusing to indulge third gender madness is a criminal act under Bill C-16, which was made into law in 2017.

In America the First Amendment has been practically useless in granting redress and preserving the right to live in reality. Dozens of cases in the last few years have made it illegal for health insurance plans to deny unnecessary and expensive transgender “treatments,” male and female segregation of public facilities, the choice to not employ transgenders in certain fields, and more.

Narcissists and homosexual activists have consistently found that federal judges will compel normal people to acquiesce to the madness of the new elite fad, which is why referendums and elections are not held on the subject. For proles, “your highness” has been replaced with calling a man in a tutu “Ma’am.”