Lesbian teen sues school to reinstate prom

[Synchronicity]

Story on Yahoo (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Story on CBS (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

TLDR summary: a Mississippi high school canceled its senior prom after a lesbian girl wanted to take her date to it. The girl is taking the blame from some of her classmates and is filing a lawsuit in an attempt to force the school to reinstate the prom.

What really perplexes me about this story is why the school did something as extreme as canceling the prom. Talk about curing the disease by killing the patient. Why bother addressing the issue of student rights and the school's same-sex dating policy when you can just nuke the whole event? :thinking:

[zibber]

I just saw a movie called Straight Laced this weekend. In it was an American high school senior who talked about his experience at his own prom. He knew that if he had taken his boyfriend, they would have had a very uncomfortable evening. Going alone, it was even more uncomfortable. This was last year. We are nowhere.

[themuzicman]

Um.. The school canceled the prom after the ACLU demanded that they change the policy. The school board appears to have made a fiscal decision not to waste money fighting the ACLU, while standing by its principles.

It's not as though some rumor was going around that there was a lesbian couple showing up. The school already had a policy, and this chic (and the ACLU) were attempting to force their morals upon the rest of the school.

Given the tight budgets that most schools are already enduring, giving the school an opportunity to save money by not doing the prom was probably a bad idea.

[Silverity]

Props to Sean Cummings for offering a free prom to the students if the district doesn't yield.

I have a hard time wrapping my my head around issues like this. I just don't get why anyone would care about who a stranger is dating, or whether or not some girl wants to wear a tux. How is wearing a tux any different from wearing any other shirt and pant combo? Bizarre.

[plotthickens]

The school already had a policy, and this chic (and the ACLU) were attempting to force their morals upon the rest of the school.

They were trying to make everyone take same-sex dates???? That seems a little extreme.

[Angel1]

The school already had a policy, and this chic (and the ACLU) were attempting to force their morals upon the rest of the school.
I didn't quite understand the above statement, until...
They were trying to make everyone take same-sex dates???? That seems a little extreme.
Plotthickens explained it for me. Thanks to Plotthickens for a wonderful explanation.

The school is absolutely right, that girl should not be allowed to force her fellow students to bring same-sex dates to the prom. That infringes upon their rights. The girl should be forced to accept that she and her partner may be the only same-sex couple at the Prom and that that is not the school's problem. It's alright if she want to bring her girlfriend to the prom, but she absolutely cannot force other students to conform to her sexual orientation. That is just wrong.

*end sarcasm*

[Zsych]

I don't think that straight people discriminating against gay people, is the same as gay people discriminating against straight people.

That said, I'm a little surprised that someone would bother reacting to a lesbian couple this seriously.


The idea of being forced to bring a same sex date to a prom like event seems intriguing btw. Might be an unusual experience.

[SShack]

They have to destroy the romantic high school memories of hundreds of heterosexual teens in order to preserve the primacy of heterosexual relationships! It makes total sense!

We must destroy heterosexual dating in order to save it!

[INTJRyan]

They were trying to make everyone take same-sex dates???? That seems a little extreme.

Not any more extreme than gay folks attempts to get married, which of course legally invalidates every hetero marriage and forces straight guys to have gay sex with each other. When gay marriage was legal here in CA, I can't tell you how many times I would come home from work only to find gay guys having sex in my living room, trying to tempt me to leave my wife and join them. I could barely resist. Luckily, I was saved by Prop 8 which put a stop to this madness. So naturally, a lesbian couple at the prom would turn the entire school gay, merely from the sight of them entering the prom.

/still waiting for someone to explain how someone other than themselves being gay affects them in any way whatsoever.

[JustMel]

Honey, I live in northern MS. This is par for the course. We are so far behind the times it's frightening at times.

The good ol' boy brigade still run things and those of us who don't care one way or the other who the kids bring to prom are the minority.

A few years ago they shut a prom down early for a "water leak" because a white girl took a black guy to the prom.

The fact that it's 2010 is irrelevant here.

[plotthickens]

*sigh* sometimes I'm consoled by the idea that the Boomers will be taking over shortly... and the Xers right after. Everyother time, it's frightening.

[SShack]

*sigh* sometimes I'm consoled by the idea that the Boomers will be taking over shortly... and the Xers right after. Everyother time, it's frightening.

We've been in the grip of the Boomers for two whole presidential administrations. The Boomers are as much responsible for the influence of the Religious Right as the generation before them.

[kepstein8888]

Honey, I live in northern MS. This is par for the course...

New prom date rules:


Lesbian girlfriend: not okay
Cousin Thelma: okay
Bessie the hog: okay...and darn purty in one o' them fancy tuck-seeders.

[Synchronicity]

Personally, I'm just glad the school is no longer discriminating against heterosexuals by allowing them to attend their senior prom. Now everyone can enjoy the freedom only gays and lesbians once knew.

[TheLastMohican]

So after reading themuzicman's post, I was going to reply comparing the school's policy to one banning Blacks from the event...

A few years ago they shut a prom down early for a "water leak" because a white girl took a black guy to the prom.

...but then, it turns out that attitude is common enough in Mississippi anyway.

:knife:

[LaoTzu]

this chic (and the ACLU) were attempting to force their morals upon the rest of the school.


Freedom is a terrible thing isn't it...

[Synchronicity]

Freedom is a terrible thing isn't it...

Good thing the board is willing to stand by their principles, or the next thing you know interracial couples will be allowed at prom :irked: Don't even get me started on Jews, Muslims, and atheists. Or immigrants, for that matter. It's hard work keeping the lefties from forcing us to treat people equally, and it's not like we don't have problems of our own (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) already.

[Ray9]

We all know that same sex dating is "natural" so what's the big deal? Should we allow pedophiles to bring children to the prom as well? There may be some who would like to bring a sheep to the event. Should this be allowed? We've come a long way but I think we've got a ways to go before that sheep gets to see the prom. But the liberals never stop so it won't be forever.

[Mozzes]

Watch out, guys, things just got a little slippery.

[TheLastMohican]

We all know that same sex dating is "natural" so what's the big deal? Should we allow pedophiles to bring children to the prom as well? There may be some who would like to bring a sheep to the event. Should this be allowed? We've come a long way but I think we've got a ways to go before that sheep gets to see the prom. But the liberals never stop so it won't be forever.
Yep, here comes the all-too-familiar parade of bad analogies. :rolleyes:

[Scatterbrane]

Should we allow pedophiles to bring children to the prom as well?

Yes, because pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality all share the same moral and legal issues.

Clearly homosexuals cannot give consent for having a relationship, any more than a child or an animal.

[JustMel]

We all know that same sex dating is "natural" so what's the big deal? Should we allow pedophiles to bring children to the prom as well? There may be some who would like to bring a sheep to the event. Should this be allowed? We've come a long way but I think we've got a ways to go before that sheep gets to see the prom. But the liberals never stop so it won't be forever.

There's a world of difference between a gay couple and bestiality.

[Synchronicity]

Yes, because pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality all share the same moral and legal issues.

Clearly homosexuals cannot give consent for having a relationship, any more than a child or an animal.

There's a world of difference between a gay couple and bestiality.

Psst...
I think he was being facetious.
If he wasn't, shame on him for being morally tone deaf :nono:

[zibber]

We all know that same sex dating is "natural" so what's the big deal? Should we allow pedophiles to bring children to the prom as well? There may be some who would like to bring a sheep to the event. Should this be allowed? We've come a long way but I think we've got a ways to go before that sheep gets to see the prom. But the liberals never stop so it won't be forever.

I think you're having difficulty with the sarcasm in this thread.

[Scatterbrane]

I need to bring my sarcasm detector to these things, being on the wrong side of the sarchasm is no good.

Anyway, what's the legal basis for a lawsuit here?

[themuzicman]

Sarcasm and misrepresentation rather than proper response... par for the course.

[yoginimama]

Sarcasm and misrepresentation rather than proper response... par for the course.

Imho, sarcasm is the proper response. How could it possibly hurt anyone if two girls, one of them in a tux, go to the prom? If some of the kids don't like it, they can just ignore it. It's high school, fergodsake--half the kids already won't be speaking to the other half because of all their byzantine dramas.

If people feel that they or their children must be prevented from seeing lesbians on a date, they can go to a faith school. It's not like we lack for those in the US. Otherwise, it's a very good life lesson to see that (a) people can be different from you (b) in shared space!!! and (c) your world won't end.

Ethnic, sexual, political and religious minorities live that way all the time, by definition. It's not so hard. Can't other people do it for one night?

[themuzicman]

Imho, sarcasm is the proper response. How could it possibly hurt anyone if two girls, one of them in a tux, go to the prom? If some of the kids don't like it, they can just ignore it. It's high school, fergodsake--half the kids already won't be speaking to the other half because of all their byzantine dramas.

If people feel that they or their children must be prevented from seeing lesbians on a date, they can go to a faith school. It's not like we lack for those in the US. Otherwise, it's a very good life lesson to see that (a) people can be different from you (b) in shared space!!! and (c) your world won't end.

Ethnic, sexual, political and religious minorities live that way all the time, by definition. It's not so hard. Can't other people do it for one night?

So, you're saying that there can be no restrictions on who or what kids may bring to the prom, that whatever they want to do or bring, as long as it isn't a violation of the law, they can do... right?

[Synchronicity]

So, you're saying that there can be no restrictions on who or what kids may bring to the prom, that whatever they want to do or bring, as long as it isn't a violation of the law, they can do... right?

Putting words in his mouth... par for the course.

[themuzicman]

Putting words in his mouth... par for the course.

I want to establish whether the HS has the right to make rules about prom or not. It appears that he would say no.

[Tough Love]

*rolls eyes*

I'll pay a kid to try and take a sibling, just to see what happens.

[JustMel]

I want to establish whether the HS has the right to make rules about prom or not. It appears that he would say no.

If it's a public school paid for by tax dollars then to discriminate against anyone for reasons of race, sexual orientation, color, creed, religion is wrong. If they want a straight couples only prom then they need to send their children to a faith based school. Period.

You may not like seeing a gay couple in a public place like a park, paid for by public tax dollars, but you can't tell them they can't go there.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 11:03 AM ----------

*rolls eyes*

I'll pay a kid to try and take a sibling, just to see what happens.

Happens a lot actually. Cousins, siblings, friends, whomever they can get if they can't get a date.

[Synchronicity]

I want to establish whether the HS has the right to make rules about prom or not. It appears that he would say no.

In that case, I'll let him respond for himself. For myself, it seems pretty clear that the school should be allowed to make rules, but that doesn't mean they get a blank check. They should not be allowed to violate the students' rights (e.g. freedom of speech, in the case of a woman wearing a tuxedo) or make discriminatory policies (e.g. barring students from entering based on sexual orientation).

[themuzicman]

In that case, I'll let him respond for himself. For myself, it seems pretty clear that the school should be allowed to make rules, but that doesn't mean they get a blank check. They should not be allowed to violate the students' rights (e.g. freedom of speech, in the case of a woman wearing a tuxedo) or make discriminatory policies (e.g. barring students from entering based on sexual orientation).

Seems to me that a school should be able to set whatever rules it wishes, subject to the accountability of the people of that community and to the laws as they exist, rather than to being forced to be subject to your or anyone else's personal morality.

[JustMel]

Seems to me that a school should be able to set whatever rules it wishes, subject to the accountability of the people of that community and to the laws as they exist, rather than to being forced to be subject to your or anyone else's personal morality.

But not allowing them subjects them to someone's morality.

[themuzicman]

But not allowing them subjects them to someone's morality.

That would be the people who have the authority to make the rules. That's why they're elected, to establish policy and rules based upon morality.

[plotthickens]

Seems to me that a school should be able to set whatever rules it wishes, subject to the accountability of the people of that community and to the laws as they exist, rather than to being forced to be subject to your or anyone else's personal morality.

Excellent! Since discrimination is illegal, the school is in the wrong and you agree. *dusts off hands*

[Synchronicity]

That would be the people who have the authority to make the rules. That's why they're elected, to establish policy and rules based upon morality.

Whose morality? Theirs? Yours? Mine?

[themuzicman]

Excellent! Since discrimination is illegal, the school is in the wrong and you agree. *dusts off hands*

Sorry, but only certain forms of discrimination are illegal. Maybe you should brush up on the laws.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:12 PM ----------

Whose morality? Theirs? Yours? Mine?

Those they were elected to enact. That's how a representative form of government works.

[Synchronicity]

Those they were elected to enact. That's how a representative form of government works.

Morals are individual, not collective. You're thinking of ethics.

[JustMel]

That would be the people who have the authority to make the rules. That's why they're elected, to establish policy and rules based upon morality.

A public school is funded by government tax dollars, not just local tax dollars. Therefore anything that the federal government is bound by so should the states be bound. It's a prom in a public school that gets it's primary funding from tax dollars therefore the kids' civil rights are being violated by not allowing the prom based on someone's sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not a reason to cancel a prom. Just like ending the prom early because a white girl brought a black guy was not a reason to end a prom early. Same situation.

As for the morality argument, it's not up to lawmakers to subvert someone's civil rights because some religious person(s) might be offended by seeing two women together at a prom. If they're that deeply religious they should be appeased that their all powerful god will punish those sinners when they die. Look in another direction. Or better yet, learn and teach tolerance for people who are different.

[Yhor]

Excellent! Since discrimination is illegal, the school is in the wrong and you agree. *dusts off hands*

But wait, certainly that's not what he meant? The rule of law is supposed to only work for those who control it!!!!!

just in case...
/sarcasm

[themuzicman]

A public school is funded by government tax dollars, not just local tax dollars. Therefore anything that the federal government is bound by so should the states be bound. It's a prom in a public school that gets it's primary funding from tax dollars therefore the kids' civil rights are being violated by not allowing the prom based on someone's sexual orientation.

Where are these civil rights written into law?

Sexual orientation is not a reason to cancel a prom. Just like ending the prom early because a white girl brought a black guy was not a reason to end a prom early. Same situation.

No, the reason to cancel the prom was to avoid the extensive legal fees that the ACLU would require them to expend in order to defend themselves. That's how the ACLU most often works.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:16 PM ----------

Morals are individual, not collective. You're thinking of ethics.

Um... Laws are collective morals, thus your assertion is incorrect.

[JustMel]

Where are these civil rights written into law?



No, the reason to cancel the prom was to avoid the extensive legal fees that the ACLU would require them to expend in order to defend themselves. That's how the ACLU most often works.


Thank goodness for the ACLU. Can't make them see reason by, oh I don't know, reasoning with them hit 'em where it hurts, the fucking checkbook.

I'm not a wiki fan but this pretty much sums it up;

Civil and political rights are a class of rights (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and freedoms (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that protect individuals (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from unwarranted action by government (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and private organizations and individuals and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) without discrimination or repression.

[Synchronicity]

Um... Laws are collective morals, thus your assertion is incorrect.

Well shit, looks like I've been checkmated. If only there was some place... some document that lays out detailed descriptions of what words mean... if only...

Oh right, the dictionary (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


eth·ics
–plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles.

[themuzicman]

Thank goodness for the ACLU. Can't make them see reason by, oh I don't know, reasoning with them hit 'em where it hurts, the fucking checkbook.

If you enjoy cheering for an organization who imposes your morality on others, then I guess you can celebrate all you want.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:18 PM ----------

Well shit, looks like I've been checkmated. If only there was some place... some document that lays out detailed descriptions of what words mean... if only...

Oh right, the dictionary (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Uh.. individual laws are morals. Nice try, tho.

[JustMel]

If you enjoy cheering for an organization who imposes your morality on others, then I guess you can celebrate all you want.


Cue the marching band and parade. Personally, I'm sick to fucking death of people who claim to be religious and christian blah blah trying to enforce their morals on me and everyone else. Come on, two girls together doesn't offend your sensibilities, it offends your righteous moral beliefs. Moral beliefs are not on an equal level with civil rights. Hallelujah. Christians are supposed to spread tolerance, acceptance, and leave the moral judgments to your god.

[Synchronicity]

If you enjoy cheering for an organization who imposes your morality on others, then I guess you can celebrate all you want.

They're not just her morals. They're mine, and other peoples'. Who is to say that the school's morals - which seem to prefer barring an entire class of students from their senior prom rather than let one gay couple in - should take precedent?

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 09:22 AM ----------

Uh.. individual laws are morals. Nice try, tho.

Individual laws are laws. Morals are completely different. The two are still related, but far from identical.

Laws: apply to everyone; are determined by legal institutions
Morals: do not apply to everyone; are determined by individuals

[themuzicman]

They're not just her morals. They're mine, and other peoples'. Who is to say that the school's morals - which seem to prefer barring an entire class of students from their senior prom rather than let one gay couple in - should take precedent?

Well, the election of the school officials is what determines what set of morals will be used to set policy. Just because you can point to an indeterminate group of people who think a particular way doesn't mean you can impose your morality on a school board who was elected to rule a particular way.

Now the barring an entire class from the prom was, as I states before, probably a financial decision by a school already short on funds (as most districts are presently), which represents a different response from most schools who would simply cave to the ACLU, but one that is done for the same reason.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:26 PM ----------

Individual laws are laws. Morals are completely different. The two are still related, but far from identical.

Laws: apply to everyone; are determined by legal institutions
Morals: do not apply to everyone; are determined by individuals

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. We have religious morals (morals based upon religious definition), social morals (often called mores) which define morality for a society, and ethics which define morals for a particular specialty.

All these are examples of group morals.

Laws are simply morals codified and enforced by the state.

[plotthickens]

Sorry, but only certain forms of discrimination are illegal. Maybe you should brush up on the laws.

Couldn't find a one that said it was OK to kick girls out cuz they like to kiss other girls. Sorry.


If you enjoy cheering for an organization who imposes your morality on others, then I guess you can celebrate all you want.

Gosh, that sounds AWFUL. I wouldn't want someone telling me I had to be straight or monogamous or wear a veil or pray to a God.

Or someone telling me I couldn't do any of those things. How about a little 'live and let live', MM?


Laws are simply morals codified and enforced by the state.

(Stipulating the rest is true for the sake of argument) And as morals change, therefore laws change. Or do you think the US should still sacrifice bullocks and stone sinners?

[SShack]

Well, the election of the school officials is what determines what set of morals will be used to set policy. Just because you can point to an indeterminate group of people who think a particular way doesn't mean you can impose your morality on a school board who was elected to rule a particular way.

Now the barring an entire class from the prom was, as I states before, probably a financial decision by a school already short on funds (as most districts are presently), which represents a different response from most schools who would simply cave to the ACLU, but one that is done for the same reason.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:26 PM ----------



Sorry, but this is simply untrue. We have religious morals (morals based upon religious definition), social morals (often called mores) which define morality for a society, and ethics which define morals for a particular specialty.

All these are examples of group morals.

Laws are simply morals codified and enforced by the state.

Man, I need to trot you whenever I'm trying to make libertarian arguments to folks on the left about why government-run schools are a bad thing. I was arguing with liberals yesterday elsewhere about how giving the government control over schools creates a never-ending battle over who gets to influence the policies (we were talking about the Texas textbook issue). And here we see it in action.

No, actually, the school board isn't supposed to be pushing its, or anybody's, morals on anybody. But it does, and it will probably continue to do so.

[themuzicman]

Couldn't find a one that said it was OK to kick girls out cuz they like to kiss other girls. Sorry.

That's because that's not how laws work. Higher authorities say what those under their authority may NOT do, not what they may do.

Gosh, that sounds AWFUL. I wouldn't want someone telling me I had to be straight or monogamous or wear a veil or pray to a God.

I don't think anyone is telling you any of this.

Or someone telling me I couldn't do any of those things. How about a little 'live and let live', MM?

Seems to me that this should go both ways.

(Stipulating the rest is true for the sake of argument) And as morals change, therefore laws change. Or do you think the US should still sacrifice bullocks and stone sinners?

Some morals change, some don't.

What you're referring to is specific to a covenant established by God with the Jews. Seeing as we aren't a Jewish nation, I wouldn't expect to see that here.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:44 PM ----------

Man, I need to trot you whenever I'm trying to make libertarian arguments to folks on the left about why government-run schools are a bad thing. I was arguing with liberals yesterday elsewhere about how giving the government control over schools creates a never-ending battle over who gets to influence the policies (we were talking about the Texas textbook issue). And here we see it in action.

I actually agree. But government run schools are what we have now.

No, actually, the school board isn't supposed to be pushing its, or anybody's, morals on anybody. But it does, and it will probably continue to do so.

You can't make policy without imposing morals.

[plotthickens]

That's because that's not how laws work. Higher authorities say what those under their authority may NOT do, not what they may do.

So there's no law against discrimination? Gosh, I thought there was. Hm. So until there is, it's OK to discriminate?

And there's no law against a lot of things. WOW! That changes everything! Until the gov't nails a list of no-no's onto the church door, they're OK to do? WOW! Very cool! I'll get right on this. Anyone got a list?


Some morals change, some don't.

What you're referring to is specific to a covenant established by God with the Jews. Seeing as we aren't a Jewish nation, I wouldn't expect to see that here.

So you're okay with Christian morals being imposed on all? And since Muslims are a fast-growing minority, when they get majority, then Islamic morals can be imposed on all? Or Atheists' morals, which are more numerous and growing faster?

[JustMel]

I find it ironic that it's always the religious who are yelling that things are immoral and passing judgments based upon things they see as "sin" and non-christians who are preaching tolerance.

The school board is there to set policies that affect learning. NOT who is allowed to go to prom. The school board is there to ensure the school's funds are used appropriately not who is allowed to go to prom. The school board is there to ensure that students are not ridiculed or discriminated against because of their sexuality, religious beliefs, color, etc. Imagine that, the school board is an extension of the government whose job is to ensure no one's civil liberties are trod upon. And when they don't do their job the ACLU is there to make sure they do. Do I approve of everything the ACLU does, just like I don't approve of everything the government does.

Funny thing for all these religious and moral objections--- isn't it god's job to judge and not man's? Isn't it "judge not lest ye be judged"? Judgment belongs to your god, not those that believe in him.

[themuzicman]

So there's no law against discrimination? Gosh, I thought there was. Hm.

When you're done being deliberately obtuse, let me know.

The law specifies who may not be discriminated against. (race, creed, religion, sex)

So you're okay with Christian morals being imposed on all? And since Muslims are a fast-growing minority, when they get majority, then Islamic morals can be imposed on all? Or Atheists, which are more numerous and growing faster?

It isn't a matter of whether they can be or not. They will. And are.

However, we are fortunate in the US to have a constitution that is (at least supposed to) limit the ability of the federal government to do so, and each state also has a constitution that does the same. This is the principle of limited government.

In this particular case, the question isn't whether the school board is telling this girl whether she can be lesbian or not, but rather the school board may define policy regarding who and what may be brought to the prom, for whatever reason they desire, so long as it is within the law to do so, and then the ability of a school board to cancel prom for whatever reason it deems as appropriate, as well.

In this case, the ACLU is seeking to impose the morality of one person upon a school board who was elected enact policies as they see fit, and whose policies aren't a violation of the law. In doing so, the ACLU forced the school board to either cave to their pressure, or cancel prom altogether, if they didn't want to invest money they didn't have to defend their policy.

If you don't think a school board should be able to do this, then work to amend the law.

[Autoptic]

When you're done being deliberately obtuse, let me know.

The law specifies who may not be discriminated against. (race, creed, religion, sex)

:huh:

[themuzicman]

:huh:

Male/Female

[Seriously]

I find it ironic that it's always the religious who are yelling that things are immoral and passing judgments based upon things they see as "sin" and non-christians who are preaching tolerance.

Sometimes they take a break and yell about being discriminated against when they can't pray in school. ;)

Funny how that works.

[Autoptic]

Male/Female

So they can't discriminate on the basis of the gender of the students.

Sometimes they take a break and yell about being discriminated against when they can't pray in school. ;)

Funny how that works.

Matthew 6:6 ;)

[plotthickens]

When you're done being deliberately obtuse, let me know.

The law specifies who may not be discriminated against. (race, creed, religion, sex)



It isn't a matter of whether they can be or not. They will. And are.

However, we are fortunate in the US to have a constitution that is (at least supposed to) limit the ability of the federal government to do so, and each state also has a constitution that does the same. This is the principle of limited government.

In this particular case, the question isn't whether the school board is telling this girl whether she can be lesbian or not, but rather the school board may define policy regarding who and what may be brought to the prom, for whatever reason they desire, so long as it is within the law to do so, and then the ability of a school board to cancel prom for whatever reason it deems as appropriate, as well.

In this case, the ACLU is seeking to impose the morality of one person upon a school board who was elected enact policies as they see fit, and whose policies aren't a violation of the law. In doing so, the ACLU forced the school board to either cave to their pressure, or cancel prom altogether, if they didn't want to invest money they didn't have to defend their policy.

If you don't think a school board should be able to do this, then work to amend the law.

"Deliberately obtuse" is still not a reason to answer my questions. They're still valid. If it's not against the law, then it's OK to do? Is that how you see things?

[Seriously]

Matthew 6:6 (King James Version)

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

??

[Autoptic]

??

Funny, when they want to pick what from their own religion they follow and what they want everyone else to follow too, which largely violates a number of other verses itself.

[Seriously]

Ah got it now. It's called twisting the scriptures to tickle the ears of the sheeple...apparently originated by Satan but adopted by Christians to serve their own purposes. ;D

[yoginimama]

the school board may define policy regarding who and what may be brought to the prom, for whatever reason they desire, so long as it is within the law to do so

That is exactly the point. It would appear that it is not within the law to prohibit a same-sex couple from attending a prom:

"We are writing to inform the District that preventing a student from bringing a same-sex date to the prom constitutes an unlawful act against Ms. McMillen and the other gay and lesbian students in your District." (emphasis mine)

(Second paragraph, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The letter goes on to cite various legal decisions in which same-sex couples requested the right to attend prom and were granted this right on First Amendment grounds.

It would appear that the District was indeed legally obligated to allow McMillen and her date to attend the prom.

[JustMel]

When you're done being deliberately obtuse, let me know.

The law specifies who may not be discriminated against. (race, creed, religion, sex)

Actually, it's being expanded to include sexual orientation. It's already been added as a reason you can not discriminate against hiring someone because of their sexual orientation.

Strengthen Anti-Discrimination Laws

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act to ensure that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. The President is committed to expanding funding for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to ensure that voting rights are protected and Americans do not suffer from increased discrimination during a time of economic distress. President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.


Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

[themuzicman]

Actually, it's being expanded to include sexual orientation. It's already been added as a reason you can not discriminate against hiring someone because of their sexual orientation.

However, it has not yet been expanded. Thank you for providing the evidence that the ACLU is incorrect in this matter.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 02:16 PM ----------

"Deliberately obtuse" is still not a reason to answer my questions. They're still valid. If it's not against the law, then it's OK to do? Is that how you see things?

From a legal sense, it is OK to do. These school board members are also held accountable to the people who elected them, who will make that determination.

But you will not.

[yoginimama]

Thank you for providing the evidence that the ACLU is incorrect in this matter.

Have you checked out the legal precedents cited by the ACLU in their demand letter?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They refer to specific cases which are directly relevant, going into detail as follows:

"In Fricke v. Lynch, the principal being sued testified in court that the school's prom policy was based on concern about possible disruption and violence at the prom in reaction to the participation of a gay couple. The court in that case was convinced of the sincerity of the principal's concern but ruled that the Consitution required the school to take steps to protect the couple's free expression rather than to stifle it. 'To rule otherwise would completely subvert free speech in the schools...'"

(3rd paragraph, emphasis mine)

[JustMel]

However, it has not yet been expanded. Thank you for providing the evidence that the ACLU is incorrect in this matter.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 02:16 PM ----------



From a legal sense, it is OK to do. These school board members are also held accountable to the people who elected them, who will make that determination.

But you will not.

The ACLU may have more up to date information than I have currently. Either way I'd suggest accepting the inevitable.

The right wing people are not the only ones the elected officials have to answer to. They're put there by everyone. Usually as the lesser of the evils. You right wing christians have been shoving your propaganda down the rest of society's throats for, oh about 2000 years now. Suck it up and let the oppressed try things for a while.

[Synchronicity]

I recall that muzic hid behind the letter of the law in the debate about same-sex marriage, as well. So far I have not heard him (or the board... or anybody, really) give a valid reason why this girl, and other homosexuals, do not deserve to bring their significant others to the prom. She's a graduating senior and meets the requirements to attend. In the past I have grudgingly supported the right of other organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate, but only because they are private organizations. This school is public, and the girls' parents pay taxes so that they can get an education and avail themselves of the rewards that come with it, such as going to prom with the rest of their classmates.

His other main thesis seems to be that it is within the rights of the board to impose any lawful policy since they, as elected representatives of the community, administrate the school in accordance with the moral values of that community. This is one of the reasons why I tried, unsuccessfully, to clear up the nomenclature with muzic, because morals are individual and vary from person to person. No one person has the same morals as the people on the board. The board members themselves also do not have entirely overlapping personal morals. The girls in question, her girlfriend, and her parents are four examples of people whose morals are in clear conflict with the board. What about their representation? Besides which, part of our ethical system is to protect individual rights from the oft-called "tyranny of the majority", which is why you can't call a vote to, as a topical example, decriminalize racial segregation. There has been plenty of precedent regarding sexual orientation as a protected status under the Equal Protection Clause, and since sexual orientation is the only rationale given for denying these girls admittance to their prom, it is a discriminatory decision and must be challenged.

[nacht]

However, it has not yet been expanded. Thank you for providing the evidence that the ACLU is incorrect in this matter.


Romer v. Evans disagrees with you. It quotes Sweatt v. Painter (1950), quoting Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) as saying "Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities." Kennedy, writing for the majority, then goes on to conclude that the amendment in question "classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else" which it deems to be unconstitutional.


From a legal sense, it is OK to do. These school board members are also held accountable to the people who elected them, who will make that determination.

But you will not.

I would note that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

[Ray9]

There's a world of difference between a gay couple and bestiality.


Ah, how silly of me. First the homosexuals, then the pedophiles and then the sheep. If you're going down the tubes you have to do it in proper sequence. I apologize for getting ahead of myself.

[JustMel]

Ah, how silly of me. First the homosexuals, then the pedophiles and then the sheep. If you're going down the tubes you have to do it in proper sequence. I apologize for getting ahead of myself.

And to think someone said they thought you were merely being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

[Synchronicity]

And to think someone said they thought you were merely being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

Well, you know... Poe's Law and all that.

[nacht]

Ah, how silly of me. First the homosexuals, then the pedophiles and then the sheep. If you're going down the tubes you have to do it in proper sequence. I apologize for getting ahead of myself.

You seem to have issues with the concepts of "consent" and "humans."

[SeaCzar]

All this bickering back and forth? Give me a break. Who gives a rat's ass about whether there is a lesbian couple at a prom? To have canceled a High School prom because of the attendance of a lesbian couple is wrong. To have canceled a High School prom because of an inter-racial couple is wrong. To have canceled a High School prom because a WASP is bringing a Catholic date is wrong.

And, I hate to break this to you folks, but this is not going to lead to paedophilia or beastiality at proms, although I would love to see some farmboy bring a sheep as a joke. Can you imagine the headlines and talking points there? And the jokes would be priceless.

[JustMel]

All this bickering back and forth? Give me a break. Who gives a rat's ass about whether there is a lesbian couple at a prom? To have canceled a High School prom because of the attendance of a lesbian couple is wrong. To have canceled a High School prom because of an inter-racial couple is wrong. To have canceled a High School prom because a WASP is bringing a Catholic date is wrong.

And, I hate to break this to you folks, but this is not going to lead to paedophilia or beastiality at proms, although I would love to see some farmboy bring a sheep as a joke. Can you imagine the headlines and talking points there? And the jokes would be priceless.

Or better yet bring his date dressed as a sheep. Oh the pictures.

[Aronnax]

Ah, how silly of me. First the homosexuals, then the pedophiles and then the sheep. If you're going down the tubes you have to do it in proper sequence. I apologize for getting ahead of myself.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[LaoTzu]

If you enjoy cheering for an organization who imposes your morality on others, then I guess you can celebrate all you want.

It's not imposing morality on anyone to defend this person's right to bring her date of choice to the prom.... It's a simple rights issue. A very simple one. Gay's are people, and should be treated as such.

As already stated; you (and that school) are imposing your morality on this person you don't even know; because of a holy writ. A holy writ that not everyone ascribes to.

You're getting double the pleasure of imposing yourself on strangers. :)

Conservatives claim to want freedom without some 'overseeing power' interjecting itself into the private lives of people. You can't pick and choose your battles. It's either all good, or it all goes.

[Tristan]

It's not imposing morality on anyone to defend this person's right to bring her date of choice to the prom.... It's a simple rights issue. A very simple one. Gay's are people, and should be treated as such.

As already stated; you (and that school) are imposing your morality on this person you don't even know; because of a holy writ. A holy writ that not everyone ascribes to.

My main problem in these bible-belt quarrels is that anti-bible types imagine themselves not to have an equally rigid moral proposition from which they derive their complaints. It's stupid in these "fly in the ointment" scenarios. 99 people want something, 1 person wants something else; thus, the whole event gets nuked. If you throw out the moral component on both sides (not accepting that either side is right or wrong in the matter) the outcome is very obviously unjust. I repeat that you have to throw out the moral component on both sides. This could make a useful mental exercise. Is it possible for you to do this? Breathe deeply and consider, before retorting about gays or individual freedoms.

We have to recognize over and over again in life that might makes a certain amount of right. Overwhelming strength forces things in its direction regardless of high-minded thoughts. We need food to live, and so we have to enslave and kill a certain amount of plants and animals, for instance. It isn't right. After all, how would you like to be grown on a farm? In the silly world of bible bickering, someone could probably protest it and call the whole operation off. Fortunately, the might of our needs weighs in.

Also it's subscribe. Ascribe goes in the other direction.