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 ...
If you think Brown v. Board of Education and the '64 Civil Rights Act are the same thing, you would make a great janitor. That's all I'm saying.
Wrong again.
Oh my God, you really got me. By all means tell us how terrible this lesbian attention whore was so maltreated by those meanies from Mississippi. I tell you it’s Mississippi Burning Part II.
What an expansive vocabulary you have. Let me guess, public school?
I'm sorry.
From the opinion of the Reagan appointee, entered today...
The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment. The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constance's requests and the ACLU's demand letter sent on her behalf. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Constance's First Amendment rights have been violated and therefore, she has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her First Amendment claim.-snip-
The Court has already found that Defendants' policies against same-sex dates and girls not wearing tuxedos, along with Defendants' action of canceling the prom, or withdrawing their sponsorship of the prom, have infringed upon Constance's First Amendment rights and therefore, there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm. will occur. The Court finds that Constance has clearly met her burden of persuasion as to the second Canal Authority factor.
-snip-
This case remains active and Plaintiff, is she so desires, will be permitted to amend her Complaint to seek compensatory damages and any other appropriate relief
Exactly where am I "wrong again".
The judge didn't agree.
It wasn't a public event, per se. It didn't have to be. But, it was an event open to all school students. As such, the school - an agency of the state government of Mississippi - had an obligation to serve the students in a manner that protected all of their constitutional guarantees.
It is exactly the same premise that the school can't offer a prom, yet close the invitations to any non-Christian. If you serve one student, you must serve all students.
No, the intent of a prom dance has nothing to do with religious affiliation. A more analogous situation concerning non-Christians would be the prohibition of non-Christians partaking in the Lord's Supper or communion which is an event whose sole purpose applies only to Christians. A non-Christian partaking of communion is an absurdity. In the same fashion the prom dance has been designed at least implicitly (no one ever thought it had to be explicitly stated) as a heterosexual celebration, and it has been understood as such for generations.
This judge in attempting to frame this issue as one of freedom of expression has completely eviscerated the intent of the function with this ham-handed application of the 1st and reduced the prom to an absurdity. Hence the decision to simply cancel.
BTW, if Constance has been openly gay since the 8th grade as the judge so dutifully notes in his opinion it's doubtful she needed to communicate such a well known identity 4 years later using such an inappropriate venue. His finding that such an expression falls squarely within the purview of the 1st betrays a total lack of sound judgement.
Using this type of unbalanced reasoning the courts can be used to destroy nearly every type organization, convention and practice when these individual rights no matter how extreme their particular application are given absolute primacy over all other interests.
And yet, some people wish to extend their religious beliefs to create a prohibition of two people of the same sex attending a school event as a couple. How about that?
A more analogous situation concerning non-Christians would be the prohibition of non-Christians partaking in the Lord's Supper or communion which is an event whose sole purpose applies only to Christians. "
Are you familiar with any public schools serving Communion? I'm certainly not.
I used the religious "test" in my hypothetical because the freedom to assemble and the freedom to express yourself happen to be found in the very same amendment as the freedom of religion. Again, how about that?
"This judge in attempting to frame this issue as one of freedom of expression has completely eviscerated the intent of the function with this ham-handed application of the 1st and reduced the prom to an absurdity. "
He didn't attempt anything, he succeeded. If you read the text of his order, including the cases he cited and you had a working knowledge of the constitution, you would understand that he did the only thing a District Court judge could do - he applied the law as it exists. Perhaps you would prefer that he ignore precedent and legislate from the bench?
"BTW, if Constance has been openly gay since the 8th grade as the judge so dutifully notes in his opinion it's doubtful she needed to communicate such a well known identity 4 years later using such an inappropriate venue."
Prom is an "inappropriate venue" to bring the person you're dating? That's some tortured logic, I'll give you that. Would you prefer students bring their mothers and fathers rather than their dates?
"His finding that such an expression falls squarely within the purview of the 1st betrays a total lack of sound judgment
Only to a person who projects what they believe the law to be, not as it actually is.
"Using this type of unbalanced reasoning the courts can be used to destroy nearly every type organization, convention and practice when these individual rights no matter how extreme their particular application are given absolute primacy over all other interests."
You want this woman to live with the confines of your religious beliefs. Precisely how is that a free republic?
How would you feel if a Muslim principle said that female students would not be allowed to wear dresses to prom, but had to wear burkahs? I suspect you wouldn't like it, and if you took the principle to court, the judge would rule that you didn't have to conform the the principle's religious conventions, which is precisely what he ruled her. Her 1st Amendment guarantees trump your desire to not be offended by her lifestyle choice.
I don't have to cite a media report. I have a beautiful photograph of a young relative at her prom; she went single with friends.
Couples tickets were apparently more expensive than two single's tickets.
You must mean "less expensive"; otherwise, why would anyone buy a couple's ticket? I didn't realize the complaint was online. I've only been reading the news reports. So, I looked up the complaint: According to the school memo (attached to the complaint), each Junior or Senior pays $35. Each junior and senior can bring one "guest" of the opposite sex who is either a lowerclassman, college age, or a student at another high school for $10 more.
This senior's "girlfriend" is a sophomore. So, I guess the sophomore and the senior could not have attended as singles after all because the sophomore could only attend as a guest of a Junior or Senior of the opposite sex (correction on me).
Talk about unfair: it appears couples who are Juniors/Seniors must pay more money ($70) than a Junior or Senior bringing a lowerclassman ($45).
You may think it's a great idea to let the state determine whom you may date.
I don't think it's the state's business to determine any such thing. (Education shouldn't be the state's business, either. All proms should be private; and so should all schools.) But, the state isn't telling this woman whom to date. The school merely established policies for the prom.
Nowhere does the school policy restrict students who identify as "gay" from the prom. If both of these girls were upperclassmen, they could've bought their tickets at $35 apiece, like all the other juniors and seniors are required to do, worn prom dresses like all the other girls are required to do, and gone to the prom. Nowhere does the policy state that you have to go with a date. It also doesn't state whom you can date. It merely says that juniors and seniors each can bring one guest of the opposite sex who is either a lowerclassman, college age student, or student from another high school.
Again, this case is about special privileges for this one student: special privileges in the dress code and in the guest policy. Why should selected rules be overturned for this one student? What about the other rules? What about students who cannot afford tuxedos or gowns? Suppose a student wants to bring a guest older than college age?
Putting ourselves in the school's position, what's next? If a girl can wear a tuxedo to the prom, why can't other students wear what they want? Suppose a boy wants to wear a dress? Cancelling the prom was the best course of action. Then REAL free association can take place as families - including the families of these girls - are free to hold private proms and decide for themselves who will be invited and what will be worn.
Otherwise, this case itself is not about free association. If the state tried to stop families from hosting their own private prom, THAT would be a case about free association. If these two girls were welcome to attend a privately-held prom, and the state tried to restrict them, THAT would be a case about free association. But, no, this case is about a public school establishing a dress code and guest policy for a prom.
>>>there is a legitimate state interest to prevent a pervert dressed in drag from attending.
If you take a deep breath and think for a moment you may realize what a dumb remark that is. This is Mississippi. You think girls there don’t regularly wear shirts and jeans? Even good virginal totally heterosexual Christian girls.
Ladies trousers have been in the wardrobe now for a century. It’s a little late to point in sputtering outrage at those who wear them.
Besides prom dresses for a generation have tended to be from the slutwear collection. A nice neat tux would be a step up from a lot of what you see.
>>>The girl, I’m sure, will amend her original complaint, seeking damages for the original ban. She’ll win, easily. That’s it, in a legal nutshell.
I question whether she can sustain a claim for actual damages for a canceled prom where the school had no obligation to hold the prom in the first place. However even a nuisance settlement would be a clear victory for her principles. Otherwise I agree with your posts.
You're full of it.
The school can prevent me or anyone else (including students) from assembling or associating on school grounds anytime they want. Happens all the time. Try to get into your local principal's office on a Sunday. You won't be able to even if he or she is there working and has his kids playing in the gym. That is not a 1st amendment violation; it is ordinary selectivity of entrance. Also, try to get you and your drinking buddies into the judge's chambers to "associate".
Right. I don't think a person that you know that went to some unrelated prom is really germane, do you?
The issue here - if you had taken the time to read the complaint - is that the student attempted to purchase a couples ticket to her prom. She was refused such a ticket because the school administration said that she was not eligible to purchase a couple's ticket if her date was a female. They also informed her that she would not be allowed to attend in a tuxedo.
"You must mean "less expensive""
Yes. I meant less expensive.
"But, the state isn't telling this woman whom to date."
The school told her that she could not bring her date to the dance. Imagine if the school said she could bring her date to the dance because her date was Jewish.
"Putting ourselves in the school's position, what's next? If a girl can wear a tuxedo to the prom, why can't other students wear what they want? "
Apparently, in Mississippi, high school girls can't wear trousers to after-school events. Is that the kind of country you wish to live in?
Gender assignment with respect to school dress codes - as I understand - is an area of law where the precedent has not yet been settled. Perhaps this case is the case that makes it to the Supreme Court. Although, after reading the judges order, I can't believe this case will make it to trial. The school, on advice of counsel, will settle.
"But, no, this case is about a public school establishing a dress code and guest policy for a prom."
The judge didn't agree, and neither do I.
Your statement is so painfully ignorant of established precedent, you're embarrassing yourself.
Read the decision. The Reagan appointed judge didn't agree with your assessment - thankfully.
In this comment you are insulting a FReeper with a demonstrable IQ quadrupling yours.
You asked me for evidence that people go to the prom without dates. I told you how I know that they do.
The issue here - if you had taken the time to read the complaint
I did read the complaint, as well as the documents attached to the complaint. Perhaps you should read those documents.
Imagine if the school said she could bring her date to the dance because her date was Jewish.
We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about a dress code and a guest policy. The guest policy does not restrict anyone based on religion. It doesn't restrict anyone based on "sexual orientation", either, for that matter.
Apparently, in Mississippi, high school girls can't wear trousers to after-school events. Is that the kind of country you wish to live in?
Now you're being ridiculous, and this isn't worth my time.
Go to sleep steve. You continue to embarrass yourself.
No, I’m staying up to hear which legal precedents apply to drunks entering judge’s chambers.
Why would I care, or why would anyone care if you know someone who went to prom with someone else of the same sex. Unless it's at this very same school district, it self-evident that it's powerfully immaterial.
"We're not talking about religion here"
No. We're talking about the 1st Amendment - the same amendment that guarantees religious freedom. That's why I keep using the hypothetical - because it's constitutionally relevant. The school can't disapprove her dates based on sex, just like the school can't approve her religion.
"It doesn't restrict anyone based on "sexual orientation", either, for that matter. "
I see. So, gays are allowed, they just can't come with each other. Is that your point?
Good luck with that.
This isn't about sexual orientation. It's about gender, and the schools violation of the Constitution when assigning gender requirements to their student's dates. Again, the judge was unambiguous in his ruling. The fact that the school violated her civil rights isn't my opinion, its his.
That explains it. You're drunk. I'd suggest you go with the scotch over the vodka so that your friends will know that your tanked and not stupid.
Why do you invariably evade when someone asks you a direct question?
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.