Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lesbian Sues Over Attire for Yearbook
St. Petersburg Times ^ | 6/20/02 | GrahamBrink

Posted on 06/20/2002 7:40:06 AM PDT by marshmallow

TAMPA -- A Robinson High student who was not allowed to pose for her senior yearbook picture in a jacket and tie filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday, claiming the school's actions violated her constitutional rights.

Nicole "Nikki" Youngblood, 17, alleges in the suit that the school's dress requirement for yearbook photos is discriminatory. All female students are required to wear a scoop-necked drape and all male students must wear a white shirt, tie and dark jacket.

Youngblood, a lesbian, hasn't worn traditionally female clothes in several years. In spring 2001, when she went to be photographed by the studio under contract with the school, she was told she had to wear the drape or get a note from the school allowing her to wear the shirt and tie.

School officials refused, saying that the compromise could lead to problems, including boys wanting to wear the drape as a gag. They told Nicole she could pay for her own picture and run it in the back of the yearbook in the advertising section, the suit states.

Nicole and her mother, Sonia Youngblood, thought the policy was inappropriate and discriminatory and decided not to pay for their own picture. A formal picture of Nicole does not appear in the yearbook, the suit states.

Nicole graduated early in December "due in large part to the discrimination she experienced with regard to her senior portrait, the attitude of the principal and school administrators handling her complaint and the ongoing harassment from other students directed at her," the suit states.

Among other things, the suit seeks a monetary award and attorney's fees.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

1 posted on 06/20/2002 7:40:06 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
There is no constitutional right to be a dyke.
2 posted on 06/20/2002 7:41:51 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
It's not enough that she gets a free education from "the people". Now she wants to sue because she didn't get to wear a necktie in her graduation picture?

I wish I was the judge in this case.

3 posted on 06/20/2002 7:46:50 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
All female students are required to wear a scoop-necked drape and all male students must wear a white shirt, tie and dark jacket.

Translation: We will attempt to control your behavior and every aspect of your appearance until the very end.

No wonder so many people can't wait to get out of high school.

4 posted on 06/20/2002 7:46:57 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
Are you sure? Isn't it contained in a sub-part of the Article guaranteeing the right to kill unborn children?
5 posted on 06/20/2002 7:47:34 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
I'm sure. In Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court said there is no right to homosexual behavior, and refused to strike down a state anti-sodomy law. Last time I looked, it was still good law.
6 posted on 06/20/2002 7:49:05 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Translation: We will attempt to control your behavior and every aspect of your appearance until the very end. No wonder so many people can't wait to get out of high school.

You forgot the part "we won't charge you for your free education".

7 posted on 06/20/2002 7:50:06 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
" Nicole and her mother, Sonia Youngblood, thought the policy was inappropriate and discriminatory'

What about her father -- What does he think ?

8 posted on 06/20/2002 7:51:32 AM PDT by Crowcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
There is no constitutional right to be a dyke.

Not even a penumbra, Counselor?

Dan
(c;

9 posted on 06/20/2002 7:54:42 AM PDT by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Translation: We will attempt to control your behavior and every aspect of your appearance until the very end.

Not so fast. Judging from the school's Web site, they don't wear uniforms to school. It appears they're merely trying to maintain (or restore) some dignity in their yearbook.

10 posted on 06/20/2002 7:55:16 AM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
There is no constitutional right to be a dyke.

Find for me the "Constitutional Right" to be a heterosexual.

11 posted on 06/20/2002 7:56:37 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
I'm sure. In Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court said there is no right to homosexual behavior, and refused to strike down a state anti-sodomy law. Last time I looked, it was still good law.

Ahh, yes. Good 'ol Bowers. Where the government decided it was its business what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own home.

I eagerly await the next Supreme Court decision declaring that the missionary position will be the only lawful one.

12 posted on 06/20/2002 7:58:10 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Actually, there is a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage -- which the Supreme Court says is fundamental. Heterosexual relations are protected by the right to privacy, in the penumbra.
13 posted on 06/20/2002 7:58:59 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
"Nick" and her mother had plenty of time to petition the school to change the school's dress requirement. Instead, they sue after the fact.

This seems to be a common thread -- ignore or flaunt existing rules, then sue later saying how unfair things are.

14 posted on 06/20/2002 8:00:02 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
It's already a gay rights cause.
15 posted on 06/20/2002 8:03:56 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
"You forgot the part "we won't charge you for your free education"."

What's all this about a free education?
Because she is a minor we assume she is not a property owner but that may not be the case. Even still, it is very likely her parents pay for her education.

How? Well, they in effect pay the state rent on the property that has their name on it. A portion of that rent money goes to paying for schools, teachers etc.

If you don't believe that her parents are paying for this girl's education please lead the effort to remove real estate and personal property taxes in your town/city/state.
My guess is that you would have a three second delay between speaking the words and having someone ask you "How would we pay for our children's education?" or accuse you of trying to take money away from children.

Nothing in life is free, Personal Property Taxes are vile. The excuse that it pays for public education makes me ill.

16 posted on 06/20/2002 8:04:46 AM PDT by Outlaw76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
get a dress, not a lawyer, butch.
17 posted on 06/20/2002 8:08:18 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw76
Take the percent of your property taxes that go toward public education and try to educate your kids for 12 years. I don't think you can do it. What makes me sick is people that accept public funds and then honestly believe that the public should have no say over the vehicle that these funds are distributed to them.

I'm all for freedom. Everyone should have the right to wear what they want. To educate their kids the way they choose. Home school your kids. Let them wear what ever they choose every day. I don't care what you do. For sure don't stifle their creativity and individuality. But if you take public money to educate your kids.... you are subject in part to the whims of the public.

18 posted on 06/20/2002 8:09:41 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
What's wrong with a frumpy sweater and a butch haircut?
19 posted on 06/20/2002 8:15:43 AM PDT by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crowcreek
Not much; he mostly stays in the kitchen.


20 posted on 06/20/2002 8:17:05 AM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson