According to multiple reports, a Christian man from Wisconsin has allegedly lost his job for refusing to use a coworker’s preferred pronouns. As a Christian, Spencer Wimmer believes he can’t affirm an attempt to transition to another gender.

“I was asked to choose between my livelihood and my love for God and my beliefs,” Wimmer told Fox News. Wimmer explained his life has been turned upside down, saying it’s “very emotional having everything kind of ripped out from under me.”

Wimmer was an employee of Generac Power Systems, Inc. for almost five years before his termination. After declining to use the desired pronouns of his colleague, Wimmer received a note demanding that he respect his coworker’s wishes. The note stated, “[R]efusal to refer to an employee/subordinate by their preferred name/pronouns is in violation of the company’s Code of Business Conduct and No Harassment Policy.” Allegedly, the HR employee responsible for delivering the notice to Wimmer told him his religious objections “did not make any sense.”

However, Wimmer asserts in a complaint filed through the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) that no Generac policy requires any employee to refer to a co-worker with preferred pronouns or titles. The complaint accuses Generac of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Wimmer based on religion.

When given the option to retain his position or stand for his faith, Wimmer chose the latter, offering his resignation on March 31. Two days later, he withdrew his resignation after claiming he had “certain rights” protecting his religious beliefs. Generac denied his request and chose to fire him from the company. Wimmer was required to vacate the premises before even claiming his belongings. The complaint suggests that when his personal effects — including his Bible — were returned, they were “defaced and badly damaged.”

The complaint concludes by requesting that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conduct a formal investigation. The document declares, “Generac’s bias and hostility toward Mr. Wimmer’s religious beliefs — including the company’s discipline, harassment, denial of a reasonable accommodation, and ultimate termination of Mr. Wimmer — constitute religious discrimination under Title VII.”

A spokesman from Generac defended Wimmer’s termination, saying, “The company complies with all federal and state employment laws. Additionally, we’ve never had a policy on gender pronoun usage.” According to headquarters, the company “voluntarily and proactively complied with the administration's executive order that the company not have DEI related requirements.”

Wimmer believes the company chose to side with the trans-identifying individual instead of seeking a compromise. He argued, “There was absolutely a way for us to work together and have a compromise where we continue to have a professional environment. … Unfortunately, there are individuals and there are organizations and structures in place that won’t let you have compromise. The fact that you have these beliefs is unacceptable to them. So, no amount of compromise is possible.”

Cara Tolliver, an attorney with WILL, believes the case has far greater implications than whether Wimmer regains his position or not. She said, “Employers, I think, have kind of become seemingly fixated on a lot of identity politics in the workplace, including the topic of gender identity. …But it’s crucial to keep in mind that even where Title VII may provide some protection to employees against workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of a gender identity, this does not supersede or eliminate Title VII protections against religious discrimination and the fact that religious discrimination is illegal.”

Tolliver believes this case may draw on precedent set in the Groff v. DeJoy Supreme Court case, which decided whether an employee can be forced into using language that violates their religious convictions. Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, told the Washington Stand, “Individuals cannot be forced to say things they don’t want to say. A company that tries to require an employee to use pronouns that do not correspond with biological sex, against the employee’s religious beliefs, may run afoul of free speech protections.”