Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby thedude » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:55 am

AussieDodger wrote:
bigh0rt wrote:As an aside, I don't think this is a 'southern' issue, as there are people everywhere who exhibit ignorance and intolerance like this. There's no reason to be stereotyping geographically, and significantly takes away from any point that is attempting to be made. There are people in the south who whole-heartedly agree with the injustice that was done here, just as there are people in New York and Los Angeles who probably think these kids got what they 'deserved' or 'had comin' to 'em'.


The difference is, it feels like the bigots are still running the place in a certain geographical area. :-? The more stereotypically "progressive" places are "with it" from the top down.

I bet a lot of people that read about this saw Mississippi as the location and thought "well that makes sense". I also bet that most of those people thinking that were "fair and balanced" to borrow a phrase from our resident Fox News robot, I mean Madison :-b :-b


Says the guy from New Zealand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3192425.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/de ... .australia
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n9266371/


My point? Prejudice can be a problem everywhere.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
thedude
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 8413
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Good Life

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:46 am

Madison wrote:Now while his conclusions might be right, 99.9% of the people on this board have always argued that absolute proof must be given before convicting someone.


I think that you are getting confused Mad. Conviction deals only with criminal matters. There is no crime here, this is constitutional interpretation. It deals with the definition of rights and not with crime and punishment.

Madison wrote: Conclusions, circumstancial evidence, gut feelings, etc, do not come into play in a court of law.


Again, it is only in a criminal court where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. You're mixing things up completely. The burden of proof isn't even beyond a reasonable doubt here, it's defining rights based upon a document, the constitution. Of course circumstantial evidence, local and current morality, social norms are all relevant in a court of law and all enter into it, especially in this case.


Madison wrote:The school determines the dress code, she insisted on breaking that dress code which would have resulted in a disruption (the level of which is irrelevant), so the school cancelled the prom. Nothing the school did violated any of her rights, and the facts of the case show that. Conclusions, circumstancial evidence, gut feelings, whatever, may show another point of view, but court cases are not determined by those things, they are determined by facts alone.


This statement shows a disconnect with reality. A publicly funded school telling a person that in order to participate in an important event that is often thought of as a rite of passage she has to dress in a fashion that she considers impersonating a differently sexually oriented person (we may disagree on this construction but this a conclusion drawn by the courts based upon the 'circumstantial evidence' that it is allowed and supposed to rely upon) may very well violate her rights. I don't know, it's a matter of interpretation and that is what the judge is paid to do, interpret the constitution using the evidence as presented. As circumstantial as you may consider it, those are the only facts available and they are still appropriate facts.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19545
(Past Year: 280)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby AussieDodger » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:56 am

thedude wrote:
AussieDodger wrote:
bigh0rt wrote:As an aside, I don't think this is a 'southern' issue, as there are people everywhere who exhibit ignorance and intolerance like this. There's no reason to be stereotyping geographically, and significantly takes away from any point that is attempting to be made. There are people in the south who whole-heartedly agree with the injustice that was done here, just as there are people in New York and Los Angeles who probably think these kids got what they 'deserved' or 'had comin' to 'em'.


The difference is, it feels like the bigots are still running the place in a certain geographical area. :-? The more stereotypically "progressive" places are "with it" from the top down.

I bet a lot of people that read about this saw Mississippi as the location and thought "well that makes sense". I also bet that most of those people thinking that were "fair and balanced" to borrow a phrase from our resident Fox News robot, I mean Madison :-b :-b


Says the guy from New Zealand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3192425.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/de ... .australia
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n9266371/


My point? Prejudice can be a problem everywhere.


LOL New Zealand First is a minority political party that panders to racist old people. Old people crawl over each other to vote for them. My grandfather was one of their most faithful sheep. They in no way speak for the mainstream. 99% of all people under 65 despise Winston Peters and wish he'd kill himself. Especially those of us who remember the 1996 elections.

Nice try though :-b
ATTENTION LONG-TIMERS! NEW FBC: http://fbc2.freeforums.net/
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11363
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby Metroid » Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:39 am

It's funny when people decide what's "normal" and what's "abnormal." :-b

Anyway I've mentioned in a couple of my posts that gender does not dictate sexual orientation or gender identity. Calling a girl abnormal because she identifies as a male, or a boy abnormal because he identifies as a female is completely silly. It's also completely ridiculous to say that because a person has a vagina they must wear a dress, or because a person has a penis they must wear pants. I mean really? What's more silly and ridiculous is saying that a person is a "troublemaker", or is "being disruptive", or is "throwing a temper tantrum" because they identify as a gender other than what society perceives them to be. It is not for you or I, or the school who enforced this stupid gender based dress code, to decide how a person identifies themselves. Again, formal dress code is fine, one based on gender is not.

I'm curious. What if a transgendered individual went to this school? What would that person have to wear to attend the prom?
Image
Metroid
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFootball Mod
Posts: 5207
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living vicariously through myself.

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby thedude » Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:47 pm

AussieDodger wrote:
thedude wrote:
AussieDodger wrote:The difference is, it feels like the bigots are still running the place in a certain geographical area. :-? The more stereotypically "progressive" places are "with it" from the top down.

I bet a lot of people that read about this saw Mississippi as the location and thought "well that makes sense". I also bet that most of those people thinking that were "fair and balanced" to borrow a phrase from our resident Fox News robot, I mean Madison :-b :-b


Says the guy from New Zealand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3192425.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/de ... .australia
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n9266371/


My point? Prejudice can be a problem everywhere.


LOL New Zealand First is a minority political party that panders to racist old people. Old people crawl over each other to vote for them. My grandfather was one of their most faithful sheep. They in no way speak for the mainstream. 99% of all people under 65 despise Winston Peters and wish he'd kill himself. Especially those of us who remember the 1996 elections.

Nice try though :-b


So couldn't it also be true that the mainstream in the south is not prejudiced?

Image
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
thedude
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 8413
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Good Life

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby Art Vandelay » Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:52 pm

Metroid wrote:It's funny when people decide what's "normal" and what's "abnormal." :-b

Anyway I've mentioned in a couple of my posts that gender does not dictate sexual orientation or gender identity. Calling a girl abnormal because she identifies as a male, or a boy abnormal because he identifies as a female is completely silly. It's also completely ridiculous to say that because a person has a vagina they must wear a dress, or because a person has a penis they must wear pants. I mean really? What's more silly and ridiculous is saying that a person is a "troublemaker", or is "being disruptive", or is "throwing a temper tantrum" because they identify as a gender other than what society perceives them to be. It is not for you or I, or the school who enforced this stupid gender based dress code, to decide how a person identifies themselves. Again, formal dress code is fine, one based on gender is not.

I'm curious. What if a transgendered individual went to this school? What would that person have to wear to attend the prom?

I intentionally stayed away from the "gender is a social construct" argument because I don't have the time for it, and I figured it wasn't going to go anywhere productive, but yeah, I'll sign on to everything Met said here.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby Metroid » Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:36 pm

I'm glad I'm not the only one here who recognizes that much of societies narrow view on gender, and gender identity, really needs to be reevaluated and is completely relevant in this discussion.
Image
Metroid
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFootball Mod
Posts: 5207
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living vicariously through myself.

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby Madison » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:27 pm

thedude wrote:
Madison wrote:Sorry for the short answers a minute ago, I was tied up on other things.

Anyway, let's discuss the judge in this matter a bit.

The judge reached the conclusion that the girl's rights were violated because the school prevented her from attending prom with her girlfriend. Now while his conclusions might be right, 99.9% of the people on this board have always argued that absolute proof must be given before convicting someone. Conclusions, circumstancial evidence, gut feelings, etc, do not come into play in a court of law. The facts of this case are that the school did not tell her she could not attend prom with her girlfriend. The school determines the dress code, she insisted on breaking that dress code which would have resulted in a disruption (the level of which is irrelevant), so the school cancelled the prom. Nothing the school did violated any of her rights, and the facts of the case show that. Conclusions, circumstancial evidence, gut feelings, whatever, may show another point of view, but court cases are not determined by those things, they are determined by facts alone. Whoever defended the school in this case has zero business being in a court of law, unless the judge was just that biased to begin with. So this court ruling will easily be overturned if the school wishes to press the issue.


There is a Supreme Court case, which is actually pretty on point.


Here is a 1999 article explaining dress code and the Constitution. This is a libertarian site, so it is probably somewhat one sided, but still worth reading...

The Littleton massacre may prompt your school administrators to ban trenchcoats, black clothing, and dark makeup. However, there is a1969 Supreme Court ruling that protects your right to express yourself with clothing. You also have additional Constitutional rights that provide protection from intolerant administrators.In the 1969 case, three government school students in Des Moines, Iowa were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. They responded by suing their school and eventually won in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The court held that since the students were quiet and passive, they were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.

The court also held that First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

According to a University of Cincinnati law professor, the 1969 decision freed public school student expression in word and garb. That means that you have the right to wear political clothing even if it is not imprinted with a message. The Vietnam protestors were simply wearing black armbands and it seems likely that they also would have won if they had chosen black trenchcoats.

If your school tries to ban attire that is not political, such as the Goth look, but not disruptive, then you have the right to sue your school for violating your Fourteen Amendment right to express your individuality.


http://libertarianrock.com/1999/05/dres ... stitution/

So the school would have to show a disruption. Apparently the judge felt the school did not meet the burden of proof of showing a disruption.


Interesting read. ;-D

But if it is true, as it reads, then every single school in this country is in the wrong, which can't be possible. :-?

Mookie4ever wrote:I think that you are getting confused Mad. Conviction deals only with criminal matters. There is no crime here, this is constitutional interpretation. It deals with the definition of rights and not with crime and punishment.


I'm simply talking guity/not guilty. Fair and balanced. Doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. Good enough for one should be good enough for the other. Either facts or assumptions, across the board.

If the school is guilty of preventing her from going to the prom with her girlfriend, the girl needs to prove that fact, which of course she cannot do. It can be assumed, but we don't assume in a court of law.

Mookie4ever wrote:Again, it is only in a criminal court where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. You're mixing things up completely. The burden of proof isn't even beyond a reasonable doubt here, it's defining rights based upon a document, the constitution. Of course circumstantial evidence, local and current morality, social norms are all relevant in a court of law and all enter into it, especially in this case.


Sorry, but if absolute facts are needed to prove someone or something is guilty of something (which this board generally demands), then that applies across the board for anyone to be considered guilty of anything. Anything less than that is irresponsible, not to mention unfair and not balanced justice.


Mookie4ever wrote:
Madison wrote:The school determines the dress code, she insisted on breaking that dress code which would have resulted in a disruption (the level of which is irrelevant), so the school cancelled the prom. Nothing the school did violated any of her rights, and the facts of the case show that. Conclusions, circumstancial evidence, gut feelings, whatever, may show another point of view, but court cases are not determined by those things, they are determined by facts alone.


This statement shows a disconnect with reality. A publicly funded school telling a person that in order to participate in an important event that is often thought of as a rite of passage she has to dress in a fashion that she considers impersonating a differently sexually oriented person (we may disagree on this construction but this a conclusion drawn by the courts based upon the 'circumstantial evidence' that it is allowed and supposed to rely upon) may very well violate her rights. I don't know, it's a matter of interpretation and that is what the judge is paid to do, interpret the constitution using the evidence as presented. As circumstantial as you may consider it, those are the only facts available and they are still appropriate facts.


I love the "publicly funded" argument. You really don't want to go there though, I'll bury you with "publicly funded" things that I pay taxes into where I have zero influence or control over. It's a poor stance that most people abandoned years ago. :-D

I still say for her rights to have been violated, it needs to be proven with facts that the school cancelled prom to prevent her from attending it with her girlfriend. The school very well might have used her insistence on breaking the dress code as an excuse to do just that, but it needs to be proven with facts. Assuming it does not accomplish that goal.

Metroid wrote:It's funny when people decide what's "normal" and what's "abnormal." :-b

Anyway I've mentioned in a couple of my posts that gender does not dictate sexual orientation or gender identity. Calling a girl abnormal because she identifies as a male, or a boy abnormal because he identifies as a female is completely silly. It's also completely ridiculous to say that because a person has a vagina they must wear a dress, or because a person has a penis they must wear pants. I mean really? What's more silly and ridiculous is saying that a person is a "troublemaker", or is "being disruptive", or is "throwing a temper tantrum" because they identify as a gender other than what society perceives them to be. It is not for you or I, or the school who enforced this stupid gender based dress code, to decide how a person identifies themselves. Again, formal dress code is fine, one based on gender is not.

I'm curious. What if a transgendered individual went to this school? What would that person have to wear to attend the prom?


"I don't care what your rules are, I'm deciding the rules!" is a temper tantrum and has nothing to do with what gender she is or what her sexual preferences are. I could say the exact same thing here at the Cafe ("I don't care what your rules are, I'm deciding the rules!") as far as cussing, so would that make the Cafe racist against heterosexual males? Nope. My pointing out her temper tantrum has nothing to do with the issue, I simply pointed out that she handled the situation like a very young child instead of handling it with a single ounce of maturity.

Why is normal and abnormal funny? It is based on years and years of research. "Normally" girls wear dresses and guys wear suits. You disagree? So "abnormal" would be a guy in a dress or a girl in a suit. "Abnormal" doesn't mean bad, wrong, or anything like that, it's simply the opposite of "normal".

Just because you disagree with the majority of society, that doesn't make it right. There's a portion of society that still thinks slaves should be allowed, or sex with kids should be allowed, or that murder is ok with a valid reason. None of those is right though (even though I could argue the murder one - but I still stipulate the murderer should face consequences).

Metroid wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one here who recognizes that much of societies narrow view on gender, and gender identity, really needs to be reevaluated and is completely relevant in this discussion.


So what's next? Girls in the boy's bathroom or shower because they identify more as a boy? Or vice versa? Gay guy in the women's bathroom or shower?

As to gender identity, call me small minded, but if someone has a penis, they are a boy and if they have a vagina, they are a girl, regardless of what they "think" they are. If they disagree with that, then have surgery and correct it.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby TheRock » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:37 pm

Madison wrote:So what's next? Girls in the boy's bathroom or shower because they identify more as a boy? Or vice versa? Gay guy in the women's bathroom or shower?

As to gender identity, call me small minded, but if someone has a penis, they are a boy and if they have a vagina, they are a girl, regardless of what they "think" they are. If they disagree with that, then have surgery and correct it.



Interesting you should bring that up...
Image
TheRock
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3055
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: America's Heartland

Re: Update: Lesbians Sent to Wrong Prom Location

Postby Madison » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:46 pm

TheRock wrote:
Madison wrote:So what's next? Girls in the boy's bathroom or shower because they identify more as a boy? Or vice versa? Gay guy in the women's bathroom or shower?

As to gender identity, call me small minded, but if someone has a penis, they are a boy and if they have a vagina, they are a girl, regardless of what they "think" they are. If they disagree with that, then have surgery and correct it.



Interesting you should bring that up...


What the heck is wrong with those people? 8-o

I can understand it as far as sports teams, but bathrooms and lockerrooms? Even in pre-school and elementary?

Saddest part? The minority of the country deserves the ramifications of stupidity like this since they are the ones pushing for it. Unfortunately, the majority has to suffer through it in order to teach a lesson that should have already been understood. :-t
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Oct. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Pittsburgh
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact