Posted on 03/23/2010 1:32:54 PM PDT by RabidBartender
I don’t think they look at it the same way you do. The girl’s rights were violated according to the judge. The case is still on the docket, ready to go. For all I know, she just might want an apology. On the other hand, she might want to own the town. Let’s just hope the civil rights division of the Justice Department doesn’t investigate, if they haven’t already. I wonder if Obama’s “Safe” Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings, has gotten wind of it.
It has nothing to do with the prom anymore. It has to do with the fact that the judge says her civil rights were violated. If her civil rights were violated she has the right to pursue legal action.
Or so would argue anyone with a grasp of elementary Logic. The moral implications notwithstanding, the thesis doesn't bear scrutiny. And yet most of today's public accommodation law is rooted in that rotten soil.
Men are judged by the company they keep. Just saying.
Then your "broadmindedness" could be construed as liberalism. What company do YOU keep?
You've been arguing that we should divorce emotion from the issue and address it on the basis of Reason alone. From that standpoint, "separate but equal" is fallacious. By extension, derivatives of a false premise are untrustworthy. The conclusion that this lesbian's civil rights have been violated is derived from a false premise -- the fruits of Brown -- and thus is predicated on a false premise. It is assailable on those grounds.
The ad hominem is a poor tactic.
Classic liberalism, sure. The Constitution either applies to everyone equally, or it applies to no one. Apparently on this matter, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't endorse the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, I think it's personally dangerous to those that practice it. At the same time, I recognize that it's none of the government's damn business who people - including teenagers attending their prom - choose to associate.
I think the reaction by the school handed them the ‘opportunity’ to grandstand.... just sayin’..... seems they should have done an end run around their plans.
For the record, I’m in favor of dress codes for proms. I’m only making a point when I argue that other students have to abide by the dress code.
The school was blindsided, but it handled the situation well by cancelling the school-run prom. Parents and students can run their own proms. (That’s what the homeschool community does - they rent halls and host their own proms.)
I’m glad they canceled the prom, though. Now that the parents are organizing a private one, many may get an eye-opening clue about the benefits of parental involvement and personal initiative, and the drawbacks of letting your social fetes be organized by the govt. schools.
>>See the difference?
Legalisms uber alles.
>>they were free to attend on exactly the same terms as every other student
Bingo, you made the point that I was clumsily attempting to make but far more skilfully.
That must be German for, "I'm not smart enough to understand the distinction you just made".
Of course not, your brilliant mind so towers above the rest of us puny intellects and your insights are so far above us that we cannot even hope to comprehend your insights.
However, simple common sense shows the grandstanding lesbian student for what she is, an attention hound.
She is free to attend. It is her demands that caused the situation. She made the choice not to go.
Why this even belongs in a court of law is beyond me.
It’s a high school prom and allegedly a happy event that was wrecked for all due to one person’s petulance.
This is not the lunch counter at Woolworth’s.
But, what do we ignorant schmucks know about the law.
On this point, we clearly agree.
Oh by the way, th same thing applies to "marriage as we know it". Every person, no matter what his or her particular sexual orientation may be, is free to marry on exactly the same terms as every other person.
The terms are: that they should be of legal age and of sound mind, having found a willing partner of legal age and sound mind and the other sex, not a close blood relative, not already married to somebody else, freely consenting without fraud or force, etc. etc.
Most gay people through history have married, and have had children, on the same terms as everybody else. The gifted writer Oscar Wilde, the Epscopal bishop Gene Robinson, former governor James ("I am a gay American") McGreevey: all married, all had kids.
To say that traditional marriage denies gays the right to marry, is just a falsehood.
It’s not such a bad idea for a prom to be held as a private affair put on by parents. When my daughter was in high school the parents had to go out and do the fund raising to pay for it anyway! If it is a group of parents putting it on they can set the rules. If the lefty parents want to put on a separate prom let them organize and pay for it.
Amen to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.