On Valentine’s Day, the Wyoming House of Representatives voted to keep contemplating Senate File 77 after a debate. The bill, titled “Compelled Speech is Not Free Speech” would prohibit the government from making you live a lie by compelling your speech through the use of one’s “preferred pronouns.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard extensive testimony on this bill Jan. 28. In support of the bill was Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona non-profit that touts 15 United States Supreme Court victories since 2011 and an 80% win rate, defending freedom of speech and religion.
Its senior counsel Matt Sharp testified, saying, “Teachers and other public employees cannot be forced to deny their core beliefs or to say things that are untrue just to keep their job.” He described how a high school orchestra teacher in Indiana faced exactly that.
The teacher was deeply religious and refused to use the “preferred pronouns” policy passed by the school. Another teacher in Virginia, and another in Ohio similarly failed to comply and faced consequences.
This happened in Wyoming too.
Government’s policies attempt to override our God-given freedom and compel our speech to fall in line with their ideological secularism, which is a religion in its own right.
“Our freedom of speech and freedom of religion includes the freedom not to endorse messages that are contrary to our core beliefs,” said Sharp.
He said a growing number of courts are ruling against government officials who require an endorsement of radical transgender ideology. In Kansas, a teacher was suspended and the federal court held that the policy violated her First Amendment rights.
The Virginia Supreme Court similarly ruled that, “they [teachers] can’t be forced to be a mouthpiece for controversial, religious, political or ideological causes.”
Specifically, that Court said, “the government cannot coerce people into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Even the Sixth circuit said, if professors “lacked free speech protections then a university could wield alarming power to compel ideological conformity.” That court opined what a world it would be if a pacifist professor was forced to declare that war is just, or make a believer verbally deny the existence of God, or require a Soviet immigrant to address his class as “comrades.”
“That cannot be,” said the Sixth Circuit Court.
“That’s because words, including pronouns have meaning. They carry a message with them,” Sharp said.
He drew the comparison that just as we would never compel anyone to respond to “Christ is risen” with the traditional response that “Christ is risen indeed” – we would be forcing a response with an ideology to which one does not agree.
Sharp, who is an attorney, addressed inaccurate blanket statements regarding the legal application of the Bostock case made by the Wyoming Education Association and Wyoming Equality. He countered: “Bostock did not hold that gender identity is a protected class. In fact, the [United States Supreme] Court specifically said in its opinion that the only statutorily protected characteristic at issue in that case is sex, not gender identity.”
Sen. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo, made an amendment that gutted the bill by deleting the portions that said an employee could, “recover appropriate relief, including …. compensatory damages, reasonable attorney fees and court costs.”
Crago describes himself on the legislative website as a “rancher/attorney” and his campaign page says he serves as Deputy County attorney in Johnson County and is a partner at Crago Law Offices.
Chairman Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne, pointedly responded, “Just so we’re clear, even without subsection B, the person would already have the ability to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.”
Crago agreed. The amendment passed.
You have to laugh when someone behaves like a typical politician who tells people they “supported” a bill, right after they amended it and gutted it to a point where it’s useless.
Hey, at least Senator Crago can use the talking point next time he door knocks and states he is pro-First Amendment. Dust off the cowboy hat at the top of the closet and get your campaign slogans and mailers ready.
The bill passed unanimously after it was gutted and is up for the Second House Reading on Feb. 18. In a 7-1 vote Wednesday morning, the House Judiciary Committee restored the bill back to its original version, giving its teeth back, so that the common man or woman (or whatever your preferred pronoun calls you) can have legal recourse with meaning to prevent the government from coercing us into the next “politically correct” agenda to which they feel like caving.
Cassie Craven can be reached at: ccraven.law@gmail.com
