California Transgender law

The government is expressly prohibited from ever deciding what people can do based on belief system and stop hiding behind belief systems.  If your belief system requires you to tell gay people they're going to hell or to be unkindly honest to elderly people entrusted to your care, then it is time to double-check your belief system; it need not waste the government's time.  There is no sympathetic circumstance by which a service provider would repeatedly misgender after correction.  

Your question is so it's unkind- isn't it protected speech?  The answer is yes, except when there's criminal intent.

I can show in a court of law that the can-opener is hallucinating.  Can you show in a court of law that a transgendered person is hallucinating?  As far as I can tell, gender dysphoria is just another human condition, well enough documented to seem present in every time and culture.  Established enough to be present in law.  I suppose there is a critique-worthy element of fashion to our present embrace of trans culture but fashion skews queer and ultimately I believe that increasing our human expression of gender is just that, increasing our human expression, which I consider beneficial.

Look- if the lunatic can-opener said "call me man one more time and I'll jump" and you say "man" and the lunatic jumps, you are probably going to get charged with something and we both know there's some justice in such a charge. There are circumstances when protected speech becomes crime and so forfeits protection.  Willfully violating another citizen's (potentially fragile) identity in the privacy of their homes, in a time of exegesis, that rises to the level of crime.  The State of California sees that as minor crime.  Why can't you?

Perhaps his employer could punish him for doing such things discourteously. But what if the home is owned by people who don't think that a transgendered woman is a woman, and who agree with the employee? That's the crucial issue: the government would force everyone in that situation to lie under punishment of a fine. I don't think that such a case would survive in front of the SC.

The Supreme Court has delivered many unworthy readings of the Constitution,  I wouldn't trust it to define my sense of right and wrong.

The whole general environment surrounding pronouns remind me of Chesterton's prophecy:

"The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face."

Great essay, an appeal for orthodoxy in a book about heretics.  I'm not sure that you get that Chesterton's being positive here embracing new heresies to better perfect his orthodoxy.  He expects that everyone will have their own dogma eventually and such is the natural state of humanity.  A fairly heretical orthodoxy for a Catholic, wouldn't you say?

Here is more from the same essay:

In real life the people who are most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all. The economists of the Manchester school who disagree with Socialism take Socialism seriously.It is the young man in Bond Street, who does not know what socialism means much less whether he agrees with it, who is quite certain that these socialist fellows are making a fuss about nothing.The man who understands the Calvinist philosophy enough to agree with it must understand the Catholic philosophy in order to disagree with it.It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong....It was the peoplewho did not care who filled the world with fire and oppression.It was the hands of the indifferent that lit the faggots;it was the hands of the indifferent that turned the rack....Bigotry in the main has always been the pervading omnipotence of those who do not care crushing out those who care in darkness and blood.

There are circumstances when protected speech becomes crime and so forfeits protection.

But once again, you assume it is the fault of the person refusing to go against their beliefs. While old people can be fragile, they can also tough and wise. If they are snowflakes, it is their fault.

Actually, there are no conditions where protected speech becomes a crime. That's what protected speech means. The person in that situation would not be charged with anything, the lunatic would be charged with assault and his lawyers would likely mount an insanity defense.

Refusing to go against your own beliefs and use someone's stupid pronoun is not fighting words nor is it disturbing any peace.

They are fighting words if you choose to be offended.

But the intent of refusing to go along with it is not to cause trouble, but to hold true to one's beliefs.

It not meant to be insulting, threating, or abusive. It's refusing to compromise one's beliefs.

Do you believe it would be considered harassment if people refused to call you by your preferred pronoun?

I'm sure that, generally speaking, if you made a habit out of purposefully and repeatedly calling strangers by the "wrong" pronoun, and forcefully ignored their protests, it would not be surprising if at least a few of them physically attacked you.

That would seem to qualify as "fighting words".

people get assaulted all the time, so what?

well, let's see do they

produce a clear and present danger?  I would say no

incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger?  nope

a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs?  naw

so by that logic, whenever someone is called any name they consider derogatory, even repeatedly that [does not] justifies violence and is not protected speech.  Repeatedly calling someone names or whatever is harassment, not because of the words they use but by their actions, that is what you are describing, again not fighting words.

right and misgendering someone is not "fighting words" and that I was posting a reply to that fact.

the way you described repeatedly etc is harassment and not speech,

even so, if someone gets in your face screaming at you, you still can't assault them with any kind of legal defense.

"the Court ruled that offensive language did not constitute fighting words."

The proposition that a particular instance of speech can be proscribable on the basis of one feature (e. g., obscenity) but not on the basis of another (e. g., opposition to the city government) is commonplace, and has found application in many contexts. We have long held, for example, that nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not because of the ideas it expresses--so that burning a flag in violation of an ordinance against outdoor fires could be punishable, whereas burning a flag in violation of an ordinance against dishonoring the flag is not. See Johnson, 491 U. S., at 406-407. See also Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. ___, ___ ___ (1991) (plurality) (slip op., at 4-6); id., at ___ ___ (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 5-6); id., at ___ ___ (Souter, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 1-2); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-377 (1968). Similarly, we have upheld reasonable "time, place, or manner" restrictions, but only if they are "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Clark v. Community for Creative Non Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 298 (1984) (noting that the O'Brien test differs little from the standard applied to time, place, or manner restrictions). And just as the power to proscribe particular speech on the basis of a noncontent element (e. g., noise) does not entail the powerto proscribe the same speech on the basis of a content element; so also, the power to proscribe it on the basis of one content element (e. g., obscenity) does not entail the power to proscribe it on the basis of other content elements.

In other words, the exclusion of "fighting words" from the scope of the First Amendment simply means that, for purposes of that Amendment, the unprotected features of the words are, despite their verbal character, essentially a "nonspeech" element of communication. Fighting words are thus analogous to a noisy sound truck: Each is, as Justice Frankfurter recognized, a "mode of speech," Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 282 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result); both can be used to convey an idea; but neither has, in and of itself, a claim upon the First Amendment. As with the sound truck, however, so also with fighting words: The government may not regulate use based on hostility--or favoritism--towards the underlying message expressed. Compare Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (upholding, against facial challenge, a content neutral ban on targeted residential picketing) with Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) (invalidating a ban on residential picketing that exempted labor picketing). [n.5]

The concurrences describe us as setting forth a new First Amendment principle that prohibition of constitutionally proscribable speech cannot be "underinclusiv[e]," post, at 6 (White, J., concurring in judgment)--a First Amendment "absolutism" whereby "within a particular `proscribable' category of expression, . . . a government must either pro scribe all speech or no speech at all," post, at 4 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). That easy target is of the concurrences' own invention. In our view, the First Amendment imposes not an "underinclusiveness" limitation but a "content discrimination" limitation upon a State's prohibition of proscribable speech. There is no problem whatever, for example, with a State's prohibiting obscenity (and other forms of proscribable expression) only in certain media or markets, for although that prohibition would be "underinclusive," it would not discriminate on the basis of content. See, e. g., Sable Communications, 492 U. S., at 124-126 (upholding 47 U.S.C. § 223(b)(1) (1988), which prohibits obscene telephone communications).

What's next? Recognise Spanish as second language?

as I said a private company would fire employees for abuse

Look up 'strict scrutiny' sweetie, maybe you can begin your introduction to Supreme Court jurisprudence there.

...but you never see them getting arrested?

The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. [LINK]

If you believe it does not qualify as "fighting words" then you have no reason to protest.  It should just fix itself.

If you believe it does not qualify as "fighting words" then you have no reason to protest.  It should just fix itself.

no reason to protest unconstitutional laws?  hmm that a very peculiar thing to say.

I thought this was a discussion forum and that is what we were doing, you are very confusing.  Or is it you don't have an answer for the links and quotes and this is your way of giving up.