I'm merely pointing to that as a ridiculous exception that is still technically valid in this instance. Sexual identity is a protected class, if only in matters of employment.
Frankly, I think it should be a universally protected class, in almost all cases and for all classifications, but it bears mentioning the limitations of the law.
Something being made up doesn't make it bullshit, but something made up by a tiny minority within a minority expecting everyone else to adopt it certainly does.
"Master, may I please have more"
It's still entirely non-standard, and not explicitly protected under law.
By all means, push the bounds; and I would hope you establish legal precedent. However, there is little that offers prior circumstance; you are still arguing how things should be, rather than how things are right now. Because of that, courts are not a sufficient venue, it must be argued at the political level.
Just wait until Mike Johnson allows a convention of the states (state governments are predominantly Republican, in contrast to the majority of state and national population) where they rewrite state adherance to the Constitution and every federal civil rights law they don't want states to have to adhere to - but not the ones you hold dear.
This isn't calling out Florida schools, this only calls out Florida employers. A teacher can be directed not to talk about gay in matters of education, and can be fired for not following such direction, but they cannot be discriminated against for their own sexual identity as a matter of their employment.
US law is shite.
Your version of "common sense" in this situation only applies to a small minority that naturally extrapolates beyond the meaning of the statement alone.
"Mx." as a prefix is not in any way established in common vernacular, nor does it easily make sense unless you assume they're doing something specific that most people don't do.
However, the law says that anyone is free to do so as they please; you can sexually identify in any way and must not be discriminated against for that in terms of your employment.
I agree that Mx is made up bullshit, much like "Latinx" is nonsense in Spanish, but the law does not make any such distinction. You cannot be discriminated against in your job based on your sexual identity, even if you identified as an Apache helicopter ("oh yes daddy, let me fuck you in your missile tubes" - "hah, as if you'd even touch the sides").
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination because of sex in matters of employment. Florida is free to prevent teachers from teaching things, but they cannot fire people for their own sexual identity, per federal law.
Meanwhile, Title II of CRA covers interstate commerce and prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin - but not sex. Under Federal Law, if your business has a lot of out of state customers (primarily hospitality) or includes supply chains that cross state lines, you can't discriminate on race, etc but you can discriminate on sex.
The 14th Amendment states that the law must apply to everyone equally. However, this only applies to governments (and their contractors) - a black person cannot be refused to be heard in court and a gay person cannot be refused a marriage.
The way US law is supposed to work is that states can set their own laws where Federal Law doesn't cover it. However, they must do this within the bounds of Federal Law. This is why we have 1st Amendment challenges against state laws that fill in the gaps of federal law - a business can discriminate based on sex, or any other reason (so long as they don't fall under Title II), even if state law says otherwise.
US law is so shit. It's unnecessarily hard to read, distributed across multiple yet interwoven jurisdictions, and full of holes. But hey, at least it isn't financial regulations - reading those will cause a sane person to lose the will to live.
TL;DR This should be a slam dunk for the teacher, per Federal Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which overrules anything the states write. However, who knows how the current Supreme Court might try to spin it - if they even opt to hear it (they absolutely should).
The rip is that service charges tend to be higher than the tip. I've always worked to 10% all my life, or I'll add 10% and then round up to a nice sounding number. This was even considered reasonable in a lot of US places back in the early 90's, but these days restaurants typically set their service charges at 12.5% or higher.
That might be fine; if the service is actually good I won't mind, but if it's just half assed service and the food isn't great then I'll kick up a stink.
I mean, I probably won't, but I'll fantasise about doing it while in the shower for a few days after.
Refuse to pay the service charge, offer the amount minus the charge.
This why even today, cash is king. With cash you can just leave the amount and they can take it or leave it.
Yeah, that's why I said "should".