Posted on 03/23/2010 1:32:54 PM PDT by RabidBartender
JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Mississippi school district violated a lesbian student's rights by refusing to allow her to bring her girlfriend to the prom, but he said he would not force the school to hold the event.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Completely disagree with you on this point. The school can have a dress code and they can refuse to let in anyone who does not follow it.
They always had a dress code at any prom I ever attended back in the day. I remember girls in slacks and guys in jeans NOT being admitted.
From what I understand, the school's expressly forbid the student from attending prom with her "girlfriend".
No one is requiring her to attend the prom. Since it's an optional, voluntary activity, the sponsoring group has the right to setting the conditions, as long as they apply across the board. If they say it's a "Mother-Daughter Banquet," the can't accommodate Jacob, Michael and Ethan and Daniel setting up a dude's table.
They also told her she couldn't wear a tuxedo.
So? Is the forensics coach allowed to attend debates in a Speedo? Is the quarterback at the football awards assembly allowed to come in a tutu?
"Both actions are plain violations of the girl's 1st Amendment right."
Nonsense. Neither a special theme event nor a dress code is a violation of the Constitution. Both Connie McMillan and her girlfriend (unnamed in the article) could have attended--- wearing flashing batttery-operated "Lesbian and Proud" buttons if they wished--- if they had each come with the required escort and if they had each complied with the required dress code.
In other words, they were free to attend on exactly the same terms as every other student. It has nothing to do with them being lesbians (although one may suspect them of being thespians.) If two "straight" girls had wanted to attend together, one or both of them wearing tuxedos, they would have met with the same response, prescinding entirely from any speculations about their gender dysphoria or their particular sexual groove.
This is not discriminatory "against lesbians" because the same rules were applied to them as to everybody else.
All in all, I suppose schools will be forced to discontinue voluntary and non-academic activities because of the "Achieve Social Change By Lawsuit" trend. Too bad, but that's where we're heading.
Ha,ha! I hope she encounters it every flippin’day of school!
I would imagine that most schools that presently don’t have a gender specific dress code for prom and other school events will soon have them.
You're misrepresenting what I said, and what the judge decided. He said, if you're going to have a prom (a school-sponsored and sanctioned event in this context), then the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the freedom to assemble and freedom of expression must apply to such an event.
He DID NOT order that the school actually hold a prime, as there is NO constitutional right to prom.
If the school sponsors a prom, then EVERY student DOES have a constitutional right to attend, with whomever they select as a guest - probably provided that guest is a student of the same school. If the guest was not a student, then it becomes more complicated.
The judge didn't. I think I'm on pretty firm standing with this Reagan appointee.
I bet you will be disappointed then.
So. Where in her request for injunctive relief does she plead that she's being forced to attend prom? It's clear from what I read, her claims are based primarily on 14th and 1st Amendment assertions.
"Since it's an optional, voluntary activity, the sponsoring group has the right to setting the conditions, as long as they apply across the board. "
No, they have the right to set conditions so long as they don't violate the student's constitutional rights.
"So? Is the forensics coach allowed to attend debates in a Speedo? Is the quarterback at the football awards assembly allowed to come in a tutu?"
Reductio ad absurdum
"Both Connie McMillan and her girlfriend (unnamed in the article) could have attended--- wearing flashing battery-operated "Lesbian and Proud" buttons if they wished--- if they had each come with the required escort and if they had each complied with the required dress code."
The judge didn't see it that way. He was right.
Why do you think the school canceled the prom? Because they knew that they'd lose.
Courts at all levels have held that students don't enjoy the full benefit of every constitutional right. Some rights are abridged or less forcefully enforced than others, to include the 1st, 4th and even to a limited degree 5th. But, the courts have liberally applied the 14th, and I suspect that they will again.
The government can in fact prescribe certain associations, particularly in so-called public accommodations. The legacy of Brown vs. Board. You now no longer have the right to refuse service based on your own values.
You read the story, right? The judge's ordered stated that there was a violation...
"Davidson's order says the district violated McMillen's constitutional rights by denying her request to bring her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo,"
You're "disappointment" prediction is already wrong.
If freedom of association is allowed to trump gender distinctions I don’t see why boys wouldn’t be allowed to associate with their girl friends in a sex specific restroom. If the laws of nature and nature’s God are subordinated to association then where ultimately is the line drawn.
I wonder what the school, will do in the future too. Because her “friend” is only a sophomore.
I guess a $30,000 scholarship wasn’t enough for the deviant.
You realize that Brown was a education segregation case that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson?
I believe you might be confusing Brown with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I have said for years that sports, dances and other extracurricular activities should be taken completely OUT of the schools.
School sports and social activities are a relic of America’s agrarian past when schools doubled as community centers because the only other buildings large enough were churches.
Club sports can assemble teams any way they like thus eliminating the cheating and outright silliness (much of it on the part of parents) involved when it comes to districting and player eligibility. They can also play games against anyone they like thus removing the considerable political nonsense involved in leagues. School spirit may be a wonderful thing but cheerleaders etc. can be associated with a club team and a following will develop rather quickly.
Proms, dances, plays, pageants, etc. can and should be organized by a community board. They would be strictly VOLUNTARY, PRIVATELY-SPONSORED activities. If anyone wishes to attend, they simply need to adhere to a code of conduct. Don’t want to attend? Fair enough. This would also eliminate the annual sue-fest that accompanies Christmas and graduation where religion is ignored, banished or actively discriminated against.
The school day would be shortened considerably - kids would focus on LEARNING in shorter segments of time thus increasing attention and retention and then activities would be held elsewhere. Costs of paying teachers and administrators would go down since they work fewer hours.
The only people conceivably hindered by such a plan would be the lawsuit-happy malcontents and their lawyers.
The schools WANT these activities because it gives them greater control of young minds and the opportunity to perpetuate PC. Taking activities off their turf (literally and figuratively) eliminates that control in one move. It will keep costs down by eliminating the need to defend against litigation.
I didn't say anyone was requiring her to attend the prom. I said that it was an event she chould choose to attend if she was willing to go along with the theme and the dress code that applied equally to every other student.
Nobody said she could not attend "on account of being a lesbian." On the contrary, I don't think anyon even inquired into her type or degree of sexual attraction.
"her claims are based primarily on 14th and 1st Amendment assertions."
Give me evidence, then, that the 1st or 14th amendment govern conduct and dress code decisions for a dance. She was not discriminated against because of who or what she is. She and any other lesbians could have attended if they had followed the announced specifications as to escort and dress.
"they have the right to set conditions so long as they don't violate the student's constitutional rights.
Certainly, but this is a tendentious argument. You haven't yet established that a Constitutional right has in fact been violated. That's the disputed question between you and me, and therefore can't serve as an assumption.
"So? Is the forensics coach allowed to attend debates in a Speedo? Is the quarterback at the football awards assembly allowed to come in a tutu?"--- Reductio ad absurdum.
Well, it might raise a smile, but it serves as an example of dress code. I presume two straight girls with their dresses up to mid-thigh or their necklines down to their nipples would not have been welcome to attend the dance either. I suppose that's the next lawsuit.
"Both Connie McMillan and her girlfriend [could have attended] with the required escort and dress."--- The judge didn't see it that way. He was right.
Once again, this is the disputed question. It can't serve as an a priori assumption, nor be proven by assertion. Can you help me here with an enlightening analogy or a reasonable inference?
The party with it's theme and rules is not a public event. It is an optional activity people buy tickets for.
Mrs.Don-o, you are the best.
I’m pleased if I can amuse you, m’lady.
Good Job, Sir.
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.