So staggering. I'll riddle it to you, clown. Yeah, it would be okay. You cannot tell her what she can and cannot do in a public facility. Dresscodes in schools are ridiculous. So long as public indecency is not breached, you should have a freedom of expression following what is written in the costitution.

 

"Costitution" huh? You know, I always thought there were two Ns in that bad boy.

 

 

Yeah, it's a public school, I'm glad to see you were able to put that together. Clearly you couldnt get much further than that of course... because prom is not a public event.

You know, I think this is where you are really running into your problem. I thought by "prom" you misspelled "senior photo." But, now I am beginning to believe you are just ramblin' on about whatever is going on in that crazy mind of your's. If I may offer some advice: At least read and understand what it is the adults are talking about before offering up childish arguments about something completely unreleated, it shines on you poorly, well, worse than usual.

 

 

Yup, I definitely tripped over my own two feet there.

 

It's okay, I am sure it's not the first time.

This is turning into a mess.

 

The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.)

 

Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing?

 

I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards.

 

 

In which situation are the rights of clothing restricted? I doubt think there's been anything like this where they have restricted clothing rights. That's a red herring.

 

No one's disagreeing about the schoolboard's rules were; instead, there is disagreement about they ought to be. Another red herring.

 

I personally don't see the big deal, and I think most men would still wear tuxedos and most women would still wear dresses. My initial feeling is that requests to wear anything outside of the "typical" formal attire should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the school.

 

It's not wrong of blacks to dress or speak differently than "the norm"; of certain religious groups to conduct themselves differently than "the norm", etc. It's wrong of others to mistreat/look down up/belittle, etc. people on the basis of such things. Don't shift the blame.

 

And to touch on an issue in multiple posts: what if she had not declared herself a lesbian and had simply made this request? The issue would be precisely the same, we would probably just understand less about her motivations. The important issue remains that she is a female attempting to wear traditionally male clothing to the prom.

 

As an aside, how "formal" and "proper" is the kind of dancing that goes on at proms, the underage drinking which inevitably occurs afterward, and the inevitable promiscuity which typically follows? It's interesting where lines get drawn.

... I think some people need to re-read the subject line of this thread, but also the story, unless we just lop all Mississippi women into the same boat.

 

/ Ceara Strurgis has been in a legal battle over the banning of women in tuxedos in the year book since last year.

// Since then someone else, Constance McMillen, fought to be able to wear her tuxedo to prom with her same sex date.

/// Two different people, two different stories.

//// You can go back and see which poster it was that went off on some weird tangent about prom.

If a guy showed in khaki's and a polo, would you have been OK with sending him home? Isn't he adhering as much to your rigidly defined standard as her?

 

Your issue with this isn't that she didn't adhere to standards of formality. It's that she tried to adhere to those standard outside of her predetermined role.

 

 

Im not sure what you're trying to say here. Yeah, I"d send him home. My issue is that she isnt following the rules. She's a lesbian, that doesnt make her a man. If a gay man showed up in a dress, he'd be sent home too. Rightfully so. He has every right to be a homosexual, but no right to attend a private event in any manner he so pleases.

 

 

Okay, so this is the place where I start to get lost. Are you saying people aren't treated differently based on racial, etnnic, religious, and sexual orientation lines? Because if so, I could just easily point you to DADT.

 

 

What? No. I said they shouldnt be treated differently based on racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual orientations. But they should be treated as equal but opposite genders.

 

 

Why? Because people don't want their daughters to walk in on men at the urinals? I think you are over thinking this....

 

But they want their sons to walk in on men at the urinals? Thank you for proving my point. A female is different. It's not okay for a little girl, keyword girl, to be mixed in with men. The same applies to a girl, keyword girl, who doesnt, and cant, use a urinal.

 

1 Riddle me this: Would it have been okay for her to wear a tux to class on any given day in your mind? Or, would you have been okay with the public school sending her home for doing so?

 

2 Let me illustrate how you tripped over your own two feet moving from one sentence to the next:

 

 

 

3 Well ummm... really? They are opposites? So, please, humor me. Which is the smart gender, and which is the stupid one? Which is the republican gender, and which is the democratic one? I mean, you are telling me they are opposite, so let's hear it.

 

 

4 Also, it's "privilege." There are really great add-ons for browsers nowadays that spell check for you, just a thought.

 

5 Okay, so aside from the fact you don't understand grammar (abide), nor how to use apostrophes all the time, ... ugh, why even bother, it's clear you are already trollin'.

 

 

6 ... or just don't understand basic concepts, like different body shapes, or the difference between men and women clothing....Or... you're just trollin'.

 

 

Lol and you have the nerve to say twice that I'm a troll.

 

 

 

Again, we are talking about a public school, and thus an event that has the blessing of the public school district. And let me play devil's advocate: if the rule's said "and all attendees must murder at least one guest while at school" would it be cool since, you know.... it was in the rules? See, when you talk in platitudes, and have no real way of backing yourself up, you open yourself to these ridiculous arguments.

 

 

Yeah guess what clown, the rules dont say that. Because we, the people, make the rules. Oh, and have fun with this. Theyre. Im. obide. and. priv-ledge. caPitalizayshin. Cry about it, as if my grammar, spelling, or punctuation is really that unacceptable that you need to complain. You're just what we like to call... a troll. Lol.

Yeah guess what clown...

Oh, darn, you got angry. Let me guess, this happened just about when you realized we, and the article, are talking about a senior photo and not a prom, which made you, and your rant, look kind of well... silly and out of place?

 

Because we, the people, make the rules.

Yeah, right there in the whole "costitution" thing, right?

 

 

And now I believe this thread can get back to its regularly scheduled programming.

.

So staggering. I'll riddle it to you, clown. Yeah, it would be okay. You cannot tell her what she can and cannot do in a public facility. Dresscodes in schools are ridiculous. So long as public indecency is not breached, you should have a freedom of expression following what is written in the costitution.

 

7 "Costitution" huh? You know, I always thought there were two Ns in that bad boy.

 

 

Yeah, it's a public school, I'm glad to see you were able to put that together. Clearly you couldnt get much further than that of course... because prom is not a public event.

You know, I think this is where you are really running into your problem. I thought by "prom" you misspelled "senior photo." But, now I am beginning to believe you are just ramblin' on about whatever is going on in that crazy mind of your's. If I may offer some advice: At least read and understand what it is the 9 adults are talking about before offering up childish arguments about something completely unreleated, it shines on you poorly, well, worse than usual.

 

 

Yup, I definitely tripped over my own two feet there.

 

9 It's okay, I am sure it's not the first time.

 

Cool so you picked on won spelling error nd nao im not alaowed to make a tipe-o. well since youve got so much to komplain about i guess i shuld type lyk dis from now on.

 

troll-o-meter - 9

 

ill just let u kno, the conversashin was bout prom, and even if the artikul is bout senior fotos a senior photo is xactlee the same thing. yeerbook is a private projekt not funded by teh school. may b if u graduated high skool ud no.

It's not, though. Or at least, I'm of the opinion that it can't be, let alone shouldn't be, when its in the context of a public school.

 

And I'm sure this lawsuit isn't about whether or not we should follow rules; it's about whether certain rules are fair, just, etc.

 

 

It is. Public education is a right. Partying with your classmates is not. It's not a public event. If it were public, you wouldnt have to pay for it. The building is rented out, it is coordinated by private volunteers from the school, students, and parents. A prom does not need to happen, however the public education system does.

 

Of course the rules are fair.... if you can accept that a woman is not a man, then they are fair. If you think men and women should be able to intermingle and not go by the same rules, then no, it's not fair. But that would mean... unisexual bathrooms... co-ed professional sports... no segregation of mens clothing from womens clothing from stores.

 

This was already voted on a long time ago. I think you know the results.

 

The prom is still sanctioned by the school, and it is still governed by the rules of the school. [i believe] You admitted such when [you/it was] said the rules of the school board should be made to govern prom. The school board is still a public institution whose rules should conform to the standards for public institutions.

 

An example: If Governor Crist's office sponsors a gala dinner for local businessman in Broward County which costs $500 per plate......is it a private event in the sense that you cannot enter unless you are invited (and/or paid)? Of course it is. Is it private in the sense that it is immune to the rules [of conduct] which concern government events? Absolutely not, and the same idea applies here.

 

The last paragraph is full of red herrings:

- Men's clothing and women's clothing are segregated by the stores by choice, because it is a logical way to divide a store based on style, fit, etc.

- We have separate bathrooms because it is considered improper, in public places, for members of the opposite sex to be in such close proximity while genitalia are [often potentially] observable. I think this is quite clear, and it's not about rules governing the sexes themselves.

- Men aren't allowed to compete in women's NCAA sports for fairness reasons dictated by our biological makeups. I'm not sure what the rules say about women competing in men's leagues, to be honest. I certainly feel that private organizations are free to make up their own minds on mixed-gender competition.

 

Yeah, it would be okay. You cannot tell her what she can and cannot do in a public facility. Dresscodes in schools are ridiculous. So long as public indecency is not breached, you should have a freedom of expression following what is written in the costitution.

 

Yeah, it's a public school, I'm glad to see you were able to put that together. Clearly you couldnt get much further than that of course... because prom is not a public event. Anywhere. It is paid for in full by fund raising and the students tickets. Student governments coordinate the funding and setup of a prom. If it were a public event, I'd like to see you walk in there and see what happens. You'll get kicked out, smart ass. A high school prom is tradition, but it is in no way aligned with public education, and is not a public event.

 

 

Pardon me for excising the parts I'm not responding to. See above.

This is turning into a mess.

 

The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.)

 

Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing?

 

I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards.

 

 

In which situation are the rights of clothing restricted? I doubt think there's been anything like this where they have restricted clothing rights. That's a red herring.

 

No one's disagreeing about the schoolboard's rules were; instead, there is disagreement about they ought to be. Another red herring.

 

I personally don't see the big deal, and I think most men would still wear tuxedos and most women would still wear dresses. My initial feeling is that requests to wear anything outside of the "typical" formal attire should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the school.

 

It's not wrong of blacks to dress or speak differently than "the norm"; of certain religious groups to conduct themselves differently than "the norm", etc. It's wrong of others to mistreat/look down up/belittle, etc. people on the basis of such things. Don't shift the blame.

 

And to touch on an issue in multiple posts: what if she had not declared herself a lesbian and had simply made this request? The issue would be precisely the same, we would probably just understand less about her motivations. The important issue remains that she is a female attempting to wear traditionally male clothing to the prom.

 

As an aside, how "formal" and "proper" is the kind of dancing that goes on at proms, the underage drinking which inevitably occurs afterward, and the inevitable promiscuity which typically follows? It's interesting where lines get drawn.

 

 

In public, rights are not restricted. Not only could a public school in general still be considered provate property (as there are still rules and regulations as to when people can access the grounds, etc.), but high school yearbooks are not operated publicly. Therefore, the hierarchy (in this case being the school board) regulates institutions such as the standard dress code.

 

As for your case about some blacks dressing/speaking differently and religious groups conducting themselves differently, the rights of such groups could be (or at least should be in certain cases) infringed upon on private property if the ones who rule the property have a problem with it, even if it might be unfair and biased.

 

No one is telling this girl that she can't wear "typical" men's clothing on the sidewalk on public streets or on her own provate property, but when she is not the authority, she can't set their own rules.

 

If she hadn't declared herself a lesbian, that would have given her even less of a chance at her winning the battle. The only reason why she would have a chance at winning this is because some judge may have sympathy for her and feel like her rights are being violated.

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

ill just let u kno, the conversashin was bout prom

 

 

You are just too cute! However, I assure you, if you go back through the first two pages of this thread you will see you are the first person to ever use the word "prom" in response to a reply that had nothing to do with prom.

Yeah guess what clown, the rules dont say that.

Oh, darn, you got angry. Let me guess, this happened just about when you realized we, and the article, are talking about a senior photo and not a prom, which made you, and your rant, look kind of well... silly and out of place?

 

Because we, the people, make the rules.

10 Yeah, right there in the whole "costitution" thing, right?

 

 

11 And now I believe this thread can get back to its regularly scheduled programming.

 

 

troll-o-meter - 11

 

And Im the troll! I love it :lol

 

Yeah, you are right, I made a mistake on mixing the two stories. But clearly you've got no argument on the matter because it really doesnt make a difference if its prom or senior photos or yearbook or any of that. But wait a second... you didnt say anything about that for the first... oh... hour or two yet you'd commented at least 4 or 5 times on my writing. So something's telling me... you just read it and realized what I'd been saying was wrong. Well after you didnt read the article and had already commented. Cool double standard. Hypocrite.

It's not, though. Or at least, I'm of the opinion that it can't be, let alone shouldn't be, when its in the context of a public school.

 

And I'm sure this lawsuit isn't about whether or not we should follow rules; it's about whether certain rules are fair, just, etc.

 

 

It is. Public education is a right. Partying with your classmates is not. It's not a public event. If it were public, you wouldnt have to pay for it. The building is rented out, it is coordinated by private volunteers from the school, students, and parents. A prom does not need to happen, however the public education system does.

 

Of course the rules are fair.... if you can accept that a woman is not a man, then they are fair. If you think men and women should be able to intermingle and not go by the same rules, then no, it's not fair. But that would mean... unisexual bathrooms... co-ed professional sports... no segregation of mens clothing from womens clothing from stores.

 

This was already voted on a long time ago. I think you know the results.

 

The prom is still sanctioned by the school, and it is still governed by the rules of the school. [i believe] You admitted such when [you/it was] said the rules of the school board should be made to govern prom. The school board is still a public institution whose rules should conform to the standards for public institutions.

 

An example: If Governor Crist's office sponsors a gala dinner for local businessman in Broward County which costs $500 per plate......is it a private event in the sense that you cannot enter unless you are invited (and/or paid)? Of course it is. Is it private in the sense that it is immune to the rules [of conduct] which concern government events? Absolutely not, and the same idea applies here.

 

The last paragraph is full of red herrings:

- Men's clothing and women's clothing are segregated by the stores by choice, because it is a logical way to divide a store based on style, fit, etc.

- We have separate bathrooms because it is considered improper, in public places, for members of the opposite sex to be in such close proximity while genitalia are [often potentially] observable. I think this is quite clear, and it's not about rules governing the sexes themselves.

- Men aren't allowed to compete in women's NCAA sports for fairness reasons dictated by our biological makeups. I'm not sure what the rules say about women competing in men's leagues, to be honest. I certainly feel that private organizations are free to make up their own minds on mixed-gender competition.

 

Yeah, it would be okay. You cannot tell her what she can and cannot do in a public facility. Dresscodes in schools are ridiculous. So long as public indecency is not breached, you should have a freedom of expression following what is written in the costitution.

 

Yeah, it's a public school, I'm glad to see you were able to put that together. Clearly you couldnt get much further than that of course... because prom is not a public event. Anywhere. It is paid for in full by fund raising and the students tickets. Student governments coordinate the funding and setup of a prom. If it were a public event, I'd like to see you walk in there and see what happens. You'll get kicked out, smart ass. A high school prom is tradition, but it is in no way aligned with public education, and is not a public event.

 

 

Pardon me for excising the parts I'm not responding to. See above.

 

Pardon me for not getting to respond here, as I've got to make the Orlando trip in the a.m., but thank you for at the very least being a civilized poster. If time permits, I will continue tomorrow

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

 

 

I'm not sure about this, don't have an answer for you, but I suspect it may be on a school to school basis. Maybe by districts? I think they do it different here in Ga...not sure, never took part in it.

Yeah, you are right, I made a mistake

 

Mmmm, vindication tastes oh so sweet, especially after such a spaz out on your part.

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

 

 

 

Yearbook sales in high school are basically a business. Schools pay a company in order to manufacture them, and then the school sells it for high prices (since everyone wants one) in order to increase their revenue. As far as I know, yearbook prices determined by the school's leadership itself.

 

That isn't something people would refer to as "public."

This is turning into a mess.

 

The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.)

 

Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing?

 

I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards.

 

 

In which situation are the rights of clothing restricted? I doubt think there's been anything like this where they have restricted clothing rights. That's a red herring.

 

No one's disagreeing about the schoolboard's rules were; instead, there is disagreement about they ought to be. Another red herring.

 

I personally don't see the big deal, and I think most men would still wear tuxedos and most women would still wear dresses. My initial feeling is that requests to wear anything outside of the "typical" formal attire should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the school.

 

It's not wrong of blacks to dress or speak differently than "the norm"; of certain religious groups to conduct themselves differently than "the norm", etc. It's wrong of others to mistreat/look down up/belittle, etc. people on the basis of such things. Don't shift the blame.

 

And to touch on an issue in multiple posts: what if she had not declared herself a lesbian and had simply made this request? The issue would be precisely the same, we would probably just understand less about her motivations. The important issue remains that she is a female attempting to wear traditionally male clothing to the prom.

 

As an aside, how "formal" and "proper" is the kind of dancing that goes on at proms, the underage drinking which inevitably occurs afterward, and the inevitable promiscuity which typically follows? It's interesting where lines get drawn.

 

 

In public, rights are not restricted. Not only could a public school in general still be considered provate property (as there are still rules and regulations as to when people can access the grounds, etc.), but high school yearbooks are not operated publicly. Therefore, the hierarchy (in this case being the school board) regulates institutions such as the standard dress code.

 

As for your case about some blacks dressing/speaking differently and religious groups conducting themselves differently, the rights of such groups could be (or at least should be in certain cases) infringed upon on private property if the ones who rule the property have a problem with it, even if it might be unfair and biased.

 

No one is telling this girl that she can't wear "typical" men's clothing on the sidewalk on public streets or on her own provate property, but when she is not the authority, she can't set their own rules.

 

If she hadn't declared herself a lesbian, that would have given her even less of a chance at her winning the battle. The only reason why she would have a chance at winning this is because some judge may have sympathy for her and feel like her rights are being violated.

 

A public school is not a private enterprise with regards to how it can treat admitted students. And high school yearsbooks are generally organized, run, and sponsored by the school.

 

I agree that the standard dress code from the schoolboard regulates these institutions. I also agree that she can't set her own rules. But she absolutely, positively has a right to a appeal the fairness of the current construction of the rules. This isn't debatable; citizens of this country have a right to challenge established rules and considerations via the courts.

 

To your last paragraph: I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong; however, it's still not the crux of the issue. I don't think she should win the case out of any "sympathy". She should either win it or lose it based on reason, but not emotion (just to clarify my classifications: fairness and justice are reasonable elements by the way; feeling bad for someone is merely emotional).

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

 

 

Privately funded. The teachers who work on these projects are purely volunteers and do not see any official extra payment for such activities. The teacher who instructs a yearbook class is participating in the physical creating of the yearbook, but it is still physically made by a private company where the books are fully paid for by the students themselves. Funding comes purely from fundraising and yearbook costs. And once again, it is not a right to appear in the yearbook, or get your senior photo (also a private company who comes to the school).

Yeah, you are right, I made a mistake

 

Mmmm, vindication tastes oh so sweet, especially after such a spaz out on your part.

 

Lol if that post was vindiction, you just ate it. But that's okay, you just ate the rest of the argument too, because I dont seem to see a response to anything.

 

And dont worry, I enjoyed rippin you a new one throughout this entire thread, but I wouldnt necessarily call it a spaz out

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

 

 

 

Yearbook sales in high school are basically a business. Schools pay a company in order to manufacture them, and then the school sells it for high prices (since everyone wants one) in order to increase their revenue. As far as I know, yearbook prices determined by the school's leadership itself.

 

That isn't something people would refer to as "public."

 

Just about all the same things can be said about school lunch, and any differences are immaterial. School lunches are school-sponsored, and so is the yearbook, and they are both still governed by the rules which govern public institutions.

 

The same could be said of any school fundraising activity, also, and I think it's clear that those are governed by public rules, too.

 

For the record, I, too, forgot for several posts that this was about the yearbook and not prom. I still stand by all my points, but if they seem off-topic, this may be the reason.

 

By the way, they not only kept her photo out of the yearbook, but they also kept her name out.

I dont seem to see a response to anything.

 

 

Well, if you want something to work on, I think you can start by backing up a number of those statements you made.

 

I'll give you a choice of two, because I don't want you to have to over think it.

 

1) Tell me how men and women are "opposite." It is your wording, so that should be easy.

 

or

 

2) Show me where anyone else was talking about prom before you since you seem to believe you were just extending this otherwise phantom discussion.

This is turning into a mess.

 

The freedom of speech clause contained in the 1st amendment only goes so far. Just as you can't scream out "fire" and attempt to be protected by the 1st amendment, the rights of clothing are also restricted in certain situations. In this case, the rules of the school board trump this person's desire to get media attention (and not to actually prove a point, just as Dr. Beinfest said earlier.)

 

Also, you have to consider the other possible consequences it would have if she were to be allowed to do this. Next thing you know you would have random heterosexual guys saying they want to be in a dress just for fun, and vice versa with the girls. What would the argument be then? That only homosexuals are allowed to wear "opposite" clothing?

 

I also hate to bring this up, but if these instances keep on popping up, nothing is going to change in this country. Minorities (whether it be a minority race/religion/etc.) will never prevent discrimination (at least not in the near future) if they do not assimilate to American societal standards.

 

 

In which situation are the rights of clothing restricted? I doubt think there's been anything like this where they have restricted clothing rights. That's a red herring.

 

No one's disagreeing about the schoolboard's rules were; instead, there is disagreement about they ought to be. Another red herring.

 

I personally don't see the big deal, and I think most men would still wear tuxedos and most women would still wear dresses. My initial feeling is that requests to wear anything outside of the "typical" formal attire should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the school.

 

It's not wrong of blacks to dress or speak differently than "the norm"; of certain religious groups to conduct themselves differently than "the norm", etc. It's wrong of others to mistreat/look down up/belittle, etc. people on the basis of such things. Don't shift the blame.

 

And to touch on an issue in multiple posts: what if she had not declared herself a lesbian and had simply made this request? The issue would be precisely the same, we would probably just understand less about her motivations. The important issue remains that she is a female attempting to wear traditionally male clothing to the prom.

 

As an aside, how "formal" and "proper" is the kind of dancing that goes on at proms, the underage drinking which inevitably occurs afterward, and the inevitable promiscuity which typically follows? It's interesting where lines get drawn.

 

 

In public, rights are not restricted. Not only could a public school in general still be considered provate property (as there are still rules and regulations as to when people can access the grounds, etc.), but high school yearbooks are not operated publicly. Therefore, the hierarchy (in this case being the school board) regulates institutions such as the standard dress code.

 

As for your case about some blacks dressing/speaking differently and religious groups conducting themselves differently, the rights of such groups could be (or at least should be in certain cases) infringed upon on private property if the ones who rule the property have a problem with it, even if it might be unfair and biased.

 

No one is telling this girl that she can't wear "typical" men's clothing on the sidewalk on public streets or on her own provate property, but when she is not the authority, she can't set their own rules.

 

If she hadn't declared herself a lesbian, that would have given her even less of a chance at her winning the battle. The only reason why she would have a chance at winning this is because some judge may have sympathy for her and feel like her rights are being violated.

 

A public school is not a private enterprise with regards to how it can treat admitted students. And high school yearsbooks are generally organized, run, and sponsored by the school.

 

I agree that the standard dress code from the schoolboard regulates these institutions. I also agree that she can't set her own rules. But she absolutely, positively has a right to a appeal the fairness of the current construction of the rules. This isn't debatable; citizens of this country have a right to challenge established rules and considerations via the courts.

 

To your last paragraph: I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong; however, it's still not the crux of the issue. I don't think she should win the case out of any "sympathy". She should either win it or lose it based on reason, but not emotion (just to clarify my classifications: fairness and justice are reasonable elements by the way; feeling bad for someone is merely emotional).

 

 

A public school only gives students a right to education, nothing else. Some public schools have school uniforms, which they are perfectly allowed to have. If one wants to be able to receive a free education at the government's expense, they have to do so under the government's rules and regulations. Yearbooks are generally organized mainly by the school, but that doesn't make them public.

 

I do not disagree nor was I debating anything you said in your second paragraph. She has the full right, as a citizen, to challenge the legality of the law. However, what I did say is that the only reason why people like her win cases like this is because of biased sympathy.

 

Note: this case is nothing like Prop 8 being overturned in California. In that case, LGBT people had the right to do what they wanted in private and were not allowed to be directed by the moral police. This case is completely different.

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

 

 

 

Yearbook sales in high school are basically a business. Schools pay a company in order to manufacture them, and then the school sells it for high prices (since everyone wants one) in order to increase their revenue. As far as I know, yearbook prices determined by the school's leadership itself.

 

That isn't something people would refer to as "public."

 

Just about all the same things can be said about school lunch, and any differences are immaterial. School lunches are school-sponsored, and so is the yearbook, and they are both still governed by the rules which govern public institutions.

 

The same could be said of any school fundraising activity, also, and I think it's clear that those are governed by public rules, too.

 

For the record, I, too, forgot for several posts that this was about the yearbook and not prom. I still stand by all my points, but if they seem off-topic, this may be the reason.

 

By the way, they not only kept her photo out of the yearbook, but they also kept her name out.

 

 

Food is not a luxury when a typical public school operates between the hours that it does. Food is a necessity, while yearbooks are not.

 

Whatever is not a necessity is, in almost all cases, considered a private organization in which students could choose to either participate in or not.

 

Also, if she refused to take a picture while wearing the proper attire, she doesn't have to be mentioned in the yearbook.

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

 

 

Privately funded. The teachers who work on these projects are purely volunteers and do not see any official extra payment for such activities. The teacher who instructs a yearbook class is participating in the physical creating of the yearbook, but it is still physically made by a private company where the books are fully paid for by the students themselves. Funding comes purely from fundraising and yearbook costs. And once again, it is not a right to appear in the yearbook, or get your senior photo (also a private company who comes to the school).

 

I understand what you are saying, but none of that eliminates the school-sponsored aspect. So are candy bars sold for fundraisers. And it's not completely privately funded AFAIK. I guess we'll find out what the courts have to say about it.

 

I don't know where you read that it is not a right to appear in the yearbook at a public school, so feel free to source that.

How is the yearbook not a school-sponsored activity? They offer a yearbook class, which is taught by a school-employed teacher, and the students in that class create the yearbook. It is explicitly sponsored by the school.

 

 

 

Yearbook sales in high school are basically a business. Schools pay a company in order to manufacture them, and then the school sells it for high prices (since everyone wants one) in order to increase their revenue. As far as I know, yearbook prices determined by the school's leadership itself.

 

That isn't something people would refer to as "public."

 

Just about all the same things can be said about school lunch, and any differences are immaterial. School lunches are school-sponsored, and so is the yearbook, and they are both still governed by the rules which govern public institutions.

 

The same could be said of any school fundraising activity, also, and I think it's clear that those are governed by public rules, too.

 

For the record, I, too, forgot for several posts that this was about the yearbook and not prom. I still stand by all my points, but if they seem off-topic, this may be the reason.

 

By the way, they not only kept her photo out of the yearbook, but they also kept her name out.

 

 

Food is not a luxury when a typical public school operates between the hours that it does. Food is a necessity, while yearbooks are not.

 

Whatever is not a necessity is, in almost all cases, considered a private organization in which students could choose to either participate in or not.

 

Also, if she refused to take a picture while wearing the proper attire, she doesn't have to be mentioned in the yearbook.

 

I need to go to bed, so this will be the last thing I post tonight (if anyone cares :whistle).

 

Food is not always a necessity.You're allowed to bring food from home.

I don't see any basis for the bolded. Feel free to offer examples/proof, but I don't see any at this point.