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...
http://libertarianrock.com/1999/05/dres ... stitution/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's funny when people decide what's "normal" and what's "abnormal."
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.....