Bigot Nicholas Meriwether That's not an opinion. That's a title, like Mr. or Mrs. or Ms., though without abbreviation (yet). Because it is my sincere religious and philosophical belief that, regardless of what Bigot Nicholas Meriwether may prefer for title and pronouns, his proper title is Bigot, with pronouns of fucker/fuckers. That is, after all, what fucker [asserts Bigot Meriwether should be able to do](https://nypost.com/2021/03/27/prof-who-refused-transgender-students-pronouns-wins-in-court/). Meriwether, a philosophy professor and devout Christian, sued Shawnee State, claiming that its mandate to use terms that conflict with biology infringed on his religious belief that gender is fixed from the moment of conception. I also firmly attest that it is my sincere religious and philosophical belief that the same title and pronouns apply to "Judge" Amul Thapar. Bigot Thapar stated "The First Amendment interests are especially strong here because Meriwether's speech also relates to his core religious and philosophical beliefs," If we are to take Bigot Amul Thapar's interpretation of Bigot Nicholas Meriwether's case, then both fuckers (remember, I believe that is the appropriate pronoun) must surely agree that all people should write their names as Bigot Amul Thapar and Bigot Nicholas Meriwether all across the internet. Or they could have used a trans kid's preferred pronouns and not been fuckers about it. But, instead, they were jerks about the whole thing. As I've pointed out before, [damn near everyone asks me if I prefer "Steve" or "Steven"](https://ideatrash.net/2016/12/but-youd-call-me-steve-nicknames-and.html). It would be rude as hell to find out I preferred one over the other, and then deliberately use the one I didn't like. That's why it's my firm religious and philosophical belief that everyone should address these fuckers using the title of Bigot, and the pronouns of fucker/fuckers. And unlike those fucker's "firmly held religious beliefs", mine have the evidence of thier actions. --- [In the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 1999, US Congress accepted that as long as there is no attempt to sell on a "personal name" Web site for profit, then it is an example of "fair use" and permission is not needed from the individual in question.](https://www.theregister.com/2001/11/26/kevin_spacey_loses_pivotal_cybersquatting/) This domain is not for sale for profit, and is posted here as societal critique and commentary on the usage of the titles, pronouns, and names that people choose rather than the ones others claim is the "right" one for them. My original post outlining this strongly held belief is at this link: [https://ideatrash.net/?p=130816](https://ideatrash.net/?p=130816)