Florida judge exonerates Christian teacher who was fired for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns because ‘God makes no mistakes’: Controversial ruling labels transgenderism a ‘new secular faith’

A Florida judge labeled transgenderism a “new secular faith” in a controversial ruling in favor of a teacher who was fired for refusing to use a student’s pronouns.

Science teacher Yojary Mundaray lost her job in 2019 after writing down a transgender student’s requested pronouns and telling her that “God doesn’t make mistakes.”

Mundaray was fired following an investigation by school administrators at Miami’s Jose de Diego Middle School, but Judge John Van Laningham called for the teacher’s acquittal as he wrote a scathing rebuke of transgender ideology.

“Proponents of transgenderism today can be as doctrinaire as religious fanatics,” he wrote in his decision.

“As this case shows, adhering to the traditional view that gender is biologically determined can lead to someone being excommunicated, in this case from a job.”

According to Van Laningham’s decision, the student – referred to only as “Pat” – was born a biological female, but asked the teacher to use male pronouns after being scolded by Mundaray for “routine horseplay.”

Mundaray refused after citing her religious beliefs, prompting the student to tell her that “God made a mistake.”

“I am a Christian and my God has made no mistakes,” the teacher replied.

Students were reportedly left in tears during the hostile back-and-forth, with the school determining that her “personal conduct…severely diminished her effectiveness as an employee of the school district.”

The student filed a complaint with the school board, which led to an internal investigation that resulted in Mundaray being fired in June 2020.

Although the teacher lost her job after it was found that she had imposed her religious dogma in her classroom, Van Laningham argued that she was free to stick to her beliefs.

“Given that Mundaray made no attempt to force Pat to accept, conform to, or even acknowledge any Christian doctrine, the claim that she imposed her personal religious views on Pat is untrue,” he wrote.

“At best, Mundaray expressed her view that God is infallible, which is about as nonsensical theological statement as you can make.

“Besides, she only did this in defense of the God she worships. This certainly cannot be a criminal offense in a country whose fundamental principles include freedom of religion.”

The scandal erupted at Jose de Diego Middle School in Miami, Florida, where the teacher was fired after determining that her “personal conduct…severely diminished her effectiveness as an employee of the school district.”

He believed the dispute hinged on religious freedoms, arguing that “the case is not about conversion, but about transgender ideology.”

In his decision, Van Laningham also referred to the student with female pronouns, despite their previous requests to be identified as male.

Van Laningham pointed to a recent law passed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that would have spared Mundaray’s job because it directs schools to identify students by their biological sex.

“In short, if the incident with Pat had occurred today, instead of three years ago, Mundaray would have been protected from the significant loss she suffered simply because she refused to do what the law now deems to be false,” he wrote.

The judge’s fervent views on transgenderism in schools, a hot topic in the culture war debates that dominate American politics, were also reflected in his ruling this week.

He labeled transgender supporters as adherents of a “new secular faith,” adding, “Proponents of transgenderism today can be as doctrinaire as religious fanatics.”

The case has yet to conclude, with the Education Practices Commission due to make a final ruling.

Laningham’s aggressive denunciation of transgenderism was reportedly footnoted, with the judge having a history of making fiery footnotes in which he was once disbarred in 2020.

According to the News Service of Florida, he was suspended for five days for questioning a fellow judge’s comments in a ruling, asking whether their comments might have been ex parte communications prohibited by Florida law.

At the time, it was noted that Van Laningham “is known for his long, sharply written orders in which he sometimes harshly reprimands state agency officials,” the newspaper reported. Journal of the American Bar Association.