GetReligion gets it again
As usual GetReligion manages to present a complex situation clearly and objectively.

A "transgender" student wants to be called by a new name, and the teacher refuses for religious reasons. Does the teacher have a justifiable case?

In this specific instance, no.

The problem with "transgender" nonsense starts with the parents and the doctors who agree to permanently alter a kid because of a momentary feeling. We wouldn't allow this for other feelings, so we shouldn't allow it for this particular feeling.

By the time the kid reached the teacher, the damage had been done.

There are plenty of ordinary situations where a kid wants or needs to be called by a new name. Adoption. Remarriage by the mother. Merged families sometimes end up with two Jasons or two Emmas, so one of them needs to change. Sometimes the original name just doesn't work. Example: My father was named after Warren Harding. Two years later Harding was disgraced so his parents gave him a different name but didn't bother to legally change it.

A teacher couldn't justify sticking with the name given at birth in those cases, so he can't justify it here.

Obviously the parents are bullying the teacher, pushing the "transgender" nonsense to generate a lawsuit, just as the parents already bullied the kid into having surgery to satisfy their political monstrosity. But that still doesn't justify the teacher's refusal.

This is entirely different from the butcher/baker/candlestickmaker situation, where the bullies are forcing the craftsman to make an object that explicitly advocates a belief he doesn't share, or an object that is prohibited by his religion.

Here the action of saying a name wouldn't be a problem without the bullying reason attached, so the teacher can't justify refusing the action.

If the new name was "I-believe-in-Satan", the case would be closer to parallel. The name itself would be forcing the teacher to declare a belief he doesn't share.
  ¶ 9:27 AM