ACLU finally butts in where they should

[Ziner]

Its been rather dead in here, so I figured I would post this story because it is a historic event for me. I actually agree with my representative and the ACLU at the same time. Amazing. This school actually canceled the prom because it lost a suit brought by the ACLU because they were forbidding a girl student from attending prom with her girlfriend. So now the girl gets to go to school and get blamed for the canceling of prom.

Nothing like cutting of your nose to spite your face.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_prom_date

p.s. read a few of the first few comments, amazing how people manage to blame the girl in all of this.

[motherscratcher]

I read that story earlier. Pretty ridiculous that something like this happens in 2010.

I can't say that I'm surprised but it is disheartening nonetheless that so many people will blame the girl who simply wants to go to the school prom with her girlfriend. The comments on the story are...about what you'd expect I guess.

[FUDU]

So the school initially had a policy banning same sex dates for the prom, the ACLU demanded the school change that policy, the school didn't, the ACLU sued, the school still didn't budge?

Now the school is getting tons of bad PR?

The person in position to make such a decision at the school should probably lose their job over their inability to come to some sort of compromise at least.

[motherscratcher]

So the school initially had a policy banning same sex dates for the prom, the ACLU demanded the school change that policy, the school didn't, the ACLU sued, the school still didn't budge?

Now the school is getting tons of bad PR?

The person in position to make such a decision at the school should probably lose their job over their inability to come to some sort of compromise at least.

Yes. Exactly.

What I can't tell from your post is if you think that the school is getting bad PR unjustly.

[Ziner]

It is just a dumb policy to start with and nothing a public school should even think they are allowed enforce. Want to have discriminatory policies? Go start a private school.

Out of curiousity, I wonder if in the past they have ever allowed 2 non-lesbians to attend the prom together. In my school there were several girls that went to prom with friends because they didnt have or want a date.

[FUDU]

So the school initially had a policy banning same sex dates for the prom, the ACLU demanded the school change that policy, the school didn't, the ACLU sued, the school still didn't budge?

Now the school is getting tons of bad PR?

The person in position to make such a decision at the school should probably lose their job over their inability to come to some sort of compromise at least.

Yes. Exactly.

What I can't tell from your post is if you think that the school is getting bad PR unjustly.

No I think the bad PR is justified.

What I really wonder is just how this story goes over in the court of public opinion if it involved a male student wanting to bring his male friend as his date/companion.

Homosexuality is viewed so differently when comparing female/female to male/male.

That oughta get the thread going now.

[FUDU]

It is just a dumb policy to start with and nothing a public school should even think they are allowed enforce. Want to have discriminatory policies? Go start a private school.

Out of curiousity, I wonder if in the past they have ever allowed 2 non-lesbians to attend the prom together. In my school there were several girls that went to prom with friends because they didnt have or want a date.

This is the other point.

The girls could have probably gone without any problems if they didn't advertise it, but again they shouldn't have to avoid their intentions.

I imagine if the girls did attend the prom together, and one was even dressed in a tux (the other in a dress) there would be nothing the school could do about it at the time.

[motherscratcher]

It is just a dumb policy to start with and nothing a public school should even think they are allowed enforce. Want to have discriminatory policies? Go start a private school.

Out of curiousity, I wonder if in the past they have ever allowed 2 non-lesbians to attend the prom together. In my school there were several girls that went to prom with friends because they didnt have or want a date.

This is the other point.

The girls could have probably gone without any problems if they didn't advertise it, but again they shouldn't have to avoid their intentions.

I imagine if the girls did attend the prom together, and one was even dressed in a tux (the other in a dress) there would be nothing the school could do about it at the time.

Yes, I can understand the policy being in there. But It's time to change the policy or ignore it.

What makes you think that the girl did something to advertise it? If she did then she was asking for trouble because she probably knew what the reaction would be.

I'd be interested to know how things actually went down. How did the school find out about it anyway?

[FUDU]

From the link doesn't it explain that the school already canceled the prom, which was scheduled for April 2nd, meaning the school knows (somehow someway, regardless if the said girl brought it to the school's attention).

[Orenthal]

Let her go and be made fun of by moronic high school students. I know for sure I would have been ruthless to her if I was going to that high school. Do we really need this crap going on in a freaking high school? I can't wait till the 5th grade dance is cancelled cuz Jenny wants to go to the dance with Jessica, I just don't understand this country anymore.

By this crap, I mean do we really need to publicize/politicize every freaking gay couple that wants to push the envelope? How much of this was just wanting to be allowed to do what everyone else does, and grandstanding...???

Go away...

I'll get the thread going...

[dmiles]

This decision was so gay.

[waborat]

Homosexuality is viewed so differently when comparing female/female to male/male.

That oughta get the thread going now.

I shoulda been a janitor

[mattvan1]

I was pretty interested in the subject, freedom of expression, civil liberties, etc. Until I clicked on the link. It's Mississippi. Not worth the bandwidth or time for further discussion. When they decide to join the 21st century it'll get a bit more relevant.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Let her go and be made fun of by moronic high school students. I know for sure I would have been ruthless to her if I was going to that high school.

Right..... Acting like an asshole is the proper response to people who are different.

Do we really need this crap going on in a freaking high school?

No, we should pretend it doesn't exist.

By this crap, I mean do we really need to publicize/politicize every freaking gay couple that wants to push the envelope? How much of this was just wanting to be allowed to do what everyone else does, and grandstanding...???

Yep. People wanting to be treated equal are "pushing the envelope". Wanting to be treated like other students is grandstanding......

[hermanfontenot]

School kids get ragged on every day for being different, CDT. Yet the fat kid or the kid who wears the same shirt to school every day never gets turned into Sacco & Vanzetti. Wonder why that is?

[General]

A shame to waste that pouty face on beaver lickin'

[Cerebral_DownTime]

School kids get ragged on every day for being different, CDT. Yet the fat kid or the kid who wears the same shirt to school every day never gets turned into Sacco & Vanzetti. Wonder why that is?

I doubt a high school prom was ever cancelled because an overweight couple wanted to attend.

She's not asking to be treated special, just to be allowed to attend a dance like any other student. But because the school is full of backwards thinking morons, they nuked the whole dance to spite 2 people. But it is the south, so it's to be expected.

[Ziner]

The bottom line is this. No ones prom would be ruined if she was able to come with who she wanted. Now because of these immature closed minded adults everyone's prom is ruined because they can't get over their own fears. That's pathetic.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

The bottom line is this. No ones prom would be ruined if she was able to come with who she wanted. Now because of these immature closed minded adults everyone's prom is ruined because they can't get over their own fears. That's pathetic.

It's because they're worried other students will be horrified by seeing 2 girls dancing together or even *gasp* kissing. They think other kids might catch gay too. Treating it like it's a infectious disease.

It's also a control issue, they want to control the lives of others and prevent them from being who they are because they disagree.

[Orenthal]

Right..... Acting like an asshole is the proper response to people who are different.

Pfft, I am glad you were so open minded as a 17/18 year old. Perhaps you have just devolved since then.

I know at 18 I would have been ruthless, as I suppose a great % of the unwashed would. Perhaps things have changed in the decade I have been out of high school, but back then it would have been open season. Is that right, no, but it is what it is...

I would absolutely prefer to pretend it doesn't exist. I've just had it with these publicized trivial events. What in the f does going to prom mean anyway. Half the kids don't even know what they are doing there, and the rest are just buying time till they get drunk and the girl in the tux gets her prom dates dress off. At least there is no risk of either getting pregnant and ruining their lives...

...my bad. The school had no right to cancel the event, and she should be allowed to go. I just don't really want to hear or see that shit, anymore then I wanna see some hetero high school couple publically making a spectacle of themselves.

IMO she is a tool. The ACLU doesn't have an agenda here... Let me know when the full scale press conference will be held...

[Ziner]

...my bad. The school had no right to cancel the event, and she should be allowed to go. I just don't really want to hear or see that shit, anymore then I wanna see some hetero high school couple publically making a spectacle of themselves.

You'll stop hearing about it when some people in society grow to have an open mind. All the girl wants to do is go to prom with her girlfriend just like every other person in that school. The public spectacle is caused by the school overstepping its bounds of control

IMO she is a tool. The ACLU doesn't have an agenda here... Let me know when the full scale press conference will be held...

Why is she a tool?

Of course the ACLU has an agenda, never said they didnt. I am just saying that this time they are using their agenda in an appropriate manner (IMO of course). The ACLU are a bunch of tool bags when they go around trying to get anything that says God taken down, but they are correct in this instance. They are different debates, just because they suck most of the time doesnt mean they suck all the time.

[hermanfontenot]

You'll stop hearing about it when some people in society grow to have an open mind.

Won't happen. Ever. You'll never get the majority to think of homosexuality as something other than abnormal behavior. Maybe they'll put up with it, but that's as good as it's going to get.

[waborat]

A shame to waste that pouty face on beaver lickin'

[Cerebral_DownTime]

You'll stop hearing about it when some people in society grow to have an open mind.

Won't happen. Ever. You'll never get the majority to think of homosexuality as something other than abnormal behavior. Maybe they'll put up with it, but that's as good as it's going to get.

You're probably right. But i'd bet people said the same thing about interracial relationships in the past.

It's sad people have such issue with something that has no effect on their lives.

[hermanfontenot]

You're probably right. But i'd bet people said the same thing about interracial relationships in the past.

And there are still plenty of people these days that look askance at interracial relationships. Not that it's the same thing anyway.

[motherscratcher]

Absolutely right CDT. I have no idea how so many people have time to actually give a shit about stuff like this. Whether you think Homosexuality is normal, abnormal, sin, not a sin, whatever...who has time to actually give a crap what someone else does on with their lives? I've got too much other shit to worry about (like Jake Delhomme).

Won't happen. Ever. You'll never get the majority to think of homosexuality as something other than abnormal behavior. Maybe they'll put up with it, but that's as good as it's going to get.

Herm - That would be OK as far as I'm concerned. I don't give a crap if anyone thinks it's normal or abnormal. The problem is that some people who think it's abnormal trample on the rights of others.

People should think what they want and let people be.

[Ziner]

You're probably right. But i'd bet people said the same thing about interracial relationships in the past.

And there are still plenty of people these days that look askance at interracial relationships. Not that it's the same thing anyway.

But we have moved past the point where a prom wouldnt be canceled if a black and white person attended together. I wasn't suggesting everyone's mind would ever be changed, but getting to the point where these people arent canceling prom over something like this is a desirable goal right? At that point these stories will be much fewer and farther between.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

You're probably right. But i'd bet people said the same thing about interracial relationships in the past.

And there are still plenty of people these days that look askance at interracial relationships. Not that it's the same thing anyway.

They're similar, it's an objection to people based on who they love and choose to have a relationship with.

[jfiling]

And there are still plenty of people these days that look askance at interracial relationships. Not that it's the same thing anyway.

They're similar, it's an objection to people based on who they love and choose to have a relationship with.

^ This

I'm amazed that in the year 2010 there are still troglodytes who think that because they disapprove of a person's sexual choices that they can discriminate against that person. Or advocate verbal abuse by their peers. Or simply dehumanize them.

[FUDU]

You'll stop hearing about it when some people in society grow to have an open mind.

Won't happen. Ever. You'll never get the majority to think of homosexuality as something other than abnormal behavior. Maybe they'll put up with it, but that's as good as it's going to get.

You're probably right. But i'd bet people said the same thing about interracial relationships in the past.

It's sad people have such issue with something that has no effect on their lives.

This response hits on one of the more deeper issues when these types of stories comes up, the fact that we live in a country in which there are states rights, as opposed to strictly federal rights/laws. We as a society say it all the time, who cares what other people do if it isn't effecting/impacting our own lives...

Yeah it might not seem like the moral way to treat somebody, it might not be a PC tolerant thing to do and it might even push the boundaries of law (if not totally break some). In the end though it is how the people of that particular area operate or want their world to work apparently. Similar to what happened in Iowa a few years ago IIRC. Iowa or some town in Iowa voted on a gay rights issue of some kind and the voters voiced their opinions completely against the gay community and the said issue. IIRC some time went by and the courts got involved attempting to over turn the outcome of the vote, the vote of the people that live and breath in that community everyday (sorry for the lapse in memory of the specific issue at hand).

Point being that there are options, for those of us not impacted by said incidents and also for those effected by them.

I am not making that argument as being right or wrong, just saying that it is in fact an argument and a perspective that has been around forever and probably will be forever. My intention is not to trivialize the girls rights, but there are a million things that you can do in some places in this country and yet not do in others.

[jfiling]

You'll stop hearing about it when some people in society grow to have an open mind.

Won't happen. Ever. You'll never get the majority to think of homosexuality as something other than abnormal behavior. Maybe they'll put up with it, but that's as good as it's going to get.

You're probably right. But i'd bet people said the same thing about interracial relationships in the past.

It's sad people have such issue with something that has no effect on their lives.

This response hits on one of the more deeper issues when these types of stories comes up, the fact that we live in a country in which there are states rights, as opposed to strictly federal rights/laws. We as a society say it all the time, who cares what other people do if it isn't effecting/impacting our own lives...

Yeah it might not seem like the moral way to treat somebody, it might not be a PC tolerant thing to do and it might even push the boundaries of law (if not totally break some). In the end though it is how the people of that particular area operate or want their world to work apparently. Similar to what happened in Iowa a few years ago IIRC. Iowa or some town in Iowa voted on a gay rights issue of some kind and the voters voiced their opinions completely against the gay community and the said issue. IIRC some time went by and the courts got involved attempting to over turn the outcome of the vote, the vote of the people that live and breath in that community everyday (sorry for the lapse in memory of the specific issue at hand).

Point being that there are options, for those of us not impacted by said incidents and also for those effected by them.

I am not making that argument as being right or wrong, just saying that it is in fact an argument and a perspective that has been around forever and probably will be forever. My intention is not to trivialize the girls rights, but there are a million things that you can do in some places in this country and yet not do in others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That should be the end of the argument. I'll leave it to the bigots to explain why it isn't.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Citizens have no right to vote on what groups get certain rights. That's not how it works. If giving blacks equal rights went to a vote in certain communities, they would NEVER have them.

You cannot deny Americans equal rights because you disagree with who they choose have a relationship with.

The Rights of one are the rights of all.

[skatingtripods]

If they're hot lesbians (and I didn't click the link), then what's the problem?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

If they're hot lesbians (and I didn't click the link), then what's the problem?

The one isn't.

[FUDU]

Citizens have no right to vote on what groups get certain rights. That's not how it works. If giving blacks equal rights went to a vote in certain communities, they would NEVER have them.

You cannot deny Americans equal rights because you disagree with who they choose have a relationship with.

The Rights of one are the rights of all.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on the principal, but as far as the process goes you might want to rethink your post. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting the people do not vote on this, or that the people should not vote on this?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Citizens have no right to vote on what groups get certain rights. That's not how it works. If giving blacks equal rights went to a vote in certain communities, they would NEVER have them.

You cannot deny Americans equal rights because you disagree with who they choose have a relationship with.

The Rights of one are the rights of all.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on the principal, but as far as the process goes you might want to rethink your post. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting the people do not vote on this, or that the people should not vote on this?

Should not.

We don't vote on personal rights, if one groups has them, they extend to all.

[FUDU]

Citizens have no right to vote on what groups get certain rights. That's not how it works. If giving blacks equal rights went to a vote in certain communities, they would NEVER have them.

You cannot deny Americans equal rights because you disagree with who they choose have a relationship with.

The Rights of one are the rights of all.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on the principal, but as far as the process goes you might want to rethink your post. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting the people do not vote on this, or that the people should not vote on this?

Should not.

We don't vote on personal rights, if one groups has them, they extend to all.

The only thing I would say to that is personal rights would need defined then, just to keep things clear and apples to apples. Inalienable = personal rights, in your mind correct?

For IE you obviously consider one's sexual preference (and this issue in this story) a personal right. Do you consider the right to bear arms a personal right? If so how do you feel about the right to own a gun being denied to somebody that committed a felony?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Citizens have no right to vote on what groups get certain rights. That's not how it works. If giving blacks equal rights went to a vote in certain communities, they would NEVER have them.

You cannot deny Americans equal rights because you disagree with who they choose have a relationship with.

The Rights of one are the rights of all.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on the principal, but as far as the process goes you might want to rethink your post. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting the people do not vote on this, or that the people should not vote on this?

Should not.

We don't vote on personal rights, if one groups has them, they extend to all.

The only thing I would say to that is personal rights would need defined then, just to keep things clear and apples to apples. Inalienable = personal rights, in your mind correct?

For IE you obviously consider one's sexual preference (and this issue in this story) a personal right. Do you consider the right to bear arms a personal right? If so how do you feel about the right to own a gun being denied to somebody that committed a felony?

A felon having a gun is a risk to public safety, they we're convicted of a felony, they waved their right to own guns.

The right to marry and love who they want shouldn't be denied based on prejudice. It's personal choice that doesn't hurt or pose a danger to anyone else.

[jfiling]

Do you consider the right to bear arms a personal right? If so how do you feel about the right to own a gun being denied to somebody that committed a felony?

A state denying the right to own a gun due to past criminal behavior is something that passes Constitutional muster. It's known as "strict scrutiny".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

There is no "compelling government interest" in preventing homosexuals from exercising all rights granted to citizens of this country, which is why the Supreme Court routinely strikes down laws that attempt that.

[Orenthal]

I think her wanting to wear a tux makes her a tool, as much as some guy wearing a dress. Won't change my mind that this is anything more then an attention grab...

[FUDU]

Well I disagree about a convicted felon having the right to own a gun, I feel they should retain that right, IF they served their sentence and just punishment according to the law. I have a problem with convicting somebody (regardless of the crime involving a gun), punishing them, then allowing them to return to society with a major restriction on what I feel is an inalienable right to own a firearm. I understand the concern for public safety, but if the convict is still a threat then leave them behind bars. If said convict committed a crime w/o a gun I don't see the overwhelming concern for safety to society in terms of gun ownership.

jfiling appreciate the link to a good point.

I know a man who is a convicted felon, involved indirectly in some grand theft auto thing. Nice guy, solid provider, probably half guilty of knowing what he was doing, yet he is not legally allowed to own a firearm. That is absurd IMO.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Well I disagree about a convicted felon having the right to own a gun, I feel they should retain that right, IF they served their sentence and just punishment according to the law. I have a problem with convicting somebody (regardless of the crime involving a gun), punishing them, then allowing them to return to society with a major restriction on what I feel is an inalienable right to own a firearm. I understand the concern for public safety, but if the convict is still a threat then leave them behind bars. If said convict committed a crime w/o a gun I don't see the overwhelming concern for safety to society in terms of gun ownership.

jfiling appreciate the link to a good point.

I know a man who is a convicted felon, involved indirectly in some grand theft auto thing. Nice guy, solid provider, probably half guilty of knowing what he was doing, yet he is not legally allowed to own a firearm. That is absurd IMO.

I would modify it to limit the right to own a firearms to violent felons.

[Orenthal]

I'll die fighting for the right of a woman, lesbian or not, to wear a tux to her prom...

Only in the era of self absorbtion...

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I'll die fighting for the right of a woman, lesbian or not, to wear a tux to her prom...

Only in the era of self absorbtion...

Yeah! I thought gays had a superior fashion sense!

[Orenthal]

We agree again CDT... Excpet some of that stuff just looks too tight...

[Cerebral_DownTime]

We agree again CDT... Excpet some of that stuff just looks too tight...

There's gay desk clerk at one our hotels that wears nothing but sports gear when he's not at work. I think his Big Z jersey is part of his skin.

[Orenthal]

CDT you work for a hotel?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

CDT you work for a hotel?

I'm Maitenance Manager for Choice Hotels.

[Orenthal]

That is very interesting, our company specializes in turn-key hotel renovation. I'll have to PM ya some info when I get back into the office on Monday. Love to see if there is anything we could assist you with...

[Cerebral_DownTime]

That is very interesting, our company specializes in turn-key hotel renovation. I'll have to PM ya some info when I get back into the office on Monday. Love to see if there is anything we could assist you with...

Most of our renovations are done in house, but we're always looking to cut costs, i'll pm you my e-mail addy.