Lesbian Teen Sent to Fake PromFollow

The first article:


The party that everyone else went to was the original private prom, the one they supposedly canceled, as I understand it. If I'm wrong, then so be it, but I don't seem to be the only one who understands it that way. Either way, your interpretation of events is at least partially wrong(see bolded statement and compare it to the article quote).

As already stated, the third one was the one she went to. Both the second and third sound to have had involvement from school officials, hence them not exactly being completely private. The only possible out I can see is if there was a fourth party.



I have to question whether they even advertised the third one to the students as a whole. I my original interpretation is correct and everyone went to the second one(the one she thought was canceled), then it's a straight up trick. If not and there was indeed a fourth party, then your statement is still invalid if the students at large didn't know about the third one and only heard about some private party.

I find it harder to believe that a fourth party was held in complete secrecy than that a third party was held with only a few students believing the second was canceled.

Without any school involvement, I doubt the court could have forced them to invite her. They had to have received funding or some other support through the school or a school affiliated organization.


I agree with your first sentence there, it's on the second sentence where we diverge. I assume instead that the school was involved(albeit with minimal evidence for either side from the articles) either through funding or non-monetary support, thus making it a school affiliated event.


I have a harder time believing that they kept the one secret from her than I do that they made up a less than real one to lie to her about canceling the other. In getting the word out that the other one was still going on, I just can't imagine someone wouldn't have slipped up and caused her to find out. It would be a lot easier to rationalize that maybe some kids didn't know that the original was canceled than to play off news that the old one was still going.

Of course, this assumes that my initial interpretation is indeed correct and it was the initial "private" prom that everyone went to. If not and there was yet another private party, I still suggest that it's highly possible they didn't advertise the third prom much at school and only she and a few people she told knew about that event.

Right. A town full of athiests would have done exactly the same thing.



You should stick to "deceptive".


"Stupid" really isn't your coloUr.

And yet, you used as an example of one's sexual identity, a choice of clothing to wear. Try stretching your mind for the moment and accept that unlike you I don't care about her sexual identity, but really honestly only care about how people dress when attending a formal event. Do you see how your position makes no sense at all? You've decided that if a style of dress is associated to a person's sexual identity that it must be respected, but if it's not, it can be infringed. Do you see how that's actually an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation?

If I'm straight and want to wear a dress to prom, I can't? But if I'm gay it's ok? Isn't that an absurd position for you to take?



You do get that US district court judges are often wrong about constitutional rulings, right? That's why we have about 3 layers of judiciary above them.



No. The school actually said that as long as she didn't make an issue of it, they didn't really care who she hung out with and/or danced with at the prom. It was that she was using her sexual orientation to force the issue that they didn't like. Had she done the classic "date swap" trick, and just quietly gone about her business, no one would have cared or noticed. It was when she effectively chose the "look at me! I'm GAAAAAY!" routine that people got annoyed with her.




That's a moronic comparison. Made only the more silly that so many people keep making it. Really? So if we allow any variation among school prom rules it's equivalent to segregation? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

How about we acknowledge that we do in fact live in a world in which schools can hold different sets of requirements for prom without reversing the entire civil rights movement? Cause doing otherwise is ridiculous hyperbole.



Stop meandering around the issue. It's not enough that a dress code and date requirement get transformed into her being "denied attendance" to the dance, but now she's being denied attendance to the entire school? Can we stick to the actual facts here? She was being required to.... *GASP* follow the exact same rules for prom as every other student in the school.

She is not being treated differently because of her sexual orientation. In fact, it's the exact opposite. She's demanding that she be treated differently because of her sexual orientation. Think about that for a moment. Let it sink in...




I've stated this several times already! The rules for dress are a dress code. It's a formal affair, and that is appropriate formal attire. The rules for bringing a date of the opposite sex have to do with ensuring that only couples coming as "dates" attend. If you allow single people to show up, or any two people to go as a couple on a ticket, you'll end up with a random mix of people.

Some schools don't care about this and are lax about it. Others are not. But it has absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs. As I've also stated, the original proms were attempts for an increasingly wealthy US middle class to emulate the debutante balls of earlier ages (and which still go on today in some social circles). Those were absolutely not religious in any way shape or form. You're making an absurdly silly connection here.



Now you're just running around in circles. I thought we were talking about the principle of tolerance? Now you defend your intolerance with a vague reference to the constitution? It's not a magical talisman you know? At some point, you have to do more than just insist that you're protecting people's constitutional rights, and actually maybe show that you have a clue what those rights are.



So because "most schools" do it that way, all schools must? Wasn't I just saying that this is what we don't have a right to do? Who are we to tell this school what rules it must have for it's prom. I have yet to hear anyone provide an adequate answer for this. And I don't want a lame fall back to "we're protecting her rights". Because the way I see it, you're just arguing in a circle. You define things as protected by the constitution because you believe that they should be granted. But you can't provide any sort of consistent reason or logic upon which that is based.




Sigh... She was not barred from attending. She could have attended by following the same rules as everyone else. What part of that are you still not getting?


I have explained, repeatedly and at length, why the rules she insists on changing are quite reasonable and purposeful without any specific intent to punish or exclude gay people. That those rules happen to make it a bit more difficult for gay couples to attend is a side effect. Not everyone is out to get the gay folks, you know. But actions like this girls certainly aren't going to make a lot of people want to help out either...

Yes, the Christian homophobes who went to all this trouble just so the gay girl couldn't go to the prom with their kids have been indoctrinated their entire lives & don't think.

And they certainly don't realize how ridiculous their positions are, which is just sad really.

Nope. The judge's ruling stands; this girl's first amendment rights were violated. The ACLU thought there was a case, took it up, and it was found that a violation did indeed occur. That you refuse to see it does not make it any different. That the majority of the student body went to extremes to continue to ostracize her just reinforces the point. I agree you can't order people to accept something they don't like; but you can show how terrible such views really are and how much they hurt people. Which is exactly this situation.

Also, kindly stop focusing on her attire only. You know darn well that a tuxedo is fine attire for a prom; she's not wearing rocker rags. She's wearing what is allowed in the rules, just for the opposite sex. Same with her date: girls are allowed at prom, just as dates for the opposite sex. I believe you're right that the rules were not initially set up to discriminate against homosexuals, but there is not doubt that that is exactly how they were used in this case. She's dressed and dating within the rules; but the rules discriminate based on sex, which is a violation of first amendment rights. Again, it's a matter of public record now, not opinion, and it stands unless someone thinks the case is important enough to take to the next level. If you're so invested, go for it. If the town is so invested, maybe they should have used their money on a court case instead of just crushing a girl's feelings by sending her to a fake prom.

Also I laugh every time you bring up the dress code, because all I can think of is that duct-tape prom dress scholarship that people compete for every year. Yeah, formal wear is totally the issue here.

Indeed. I think we've talked a lot about how people will not change their views even if you can force them to adjust their behavior. Point in fact, gbaji keeps insisting the judge, the girl, the ACLU, the first amendment, everyone is wrong except for the people who excluded her. We can point out how ungrounded in reality this is as many times as we like, but we won't change his views.

Oh well. When logic fails, there's not much you can do.

Apparently the principal said something to the effect that, even if they both came using separate tickets, wearing dresses, they could still get kicked out if they slow danced together. Even if you can make weak cases for the couples tickets and dress code (which I don't think you can, but whatever), that makes it blatant homophobia.

Also, about the dress code, has anyone ever heard of this scholarship. No one ever thought it diminished the prom because some people were wearing outfits made out of duct tape, because they were still special. Just as a dress or tux is. And a lot of girls don't go to prom in "prom" dresses, because they don't have the money for them. They come wearing what they can afford.

But yeah, I accept that arguing with gbaji is pointless. When logic fails, I don't really know what to do...

Because unlike you he has an ability to reason ranked somewhere above that of a turnip?

I've seen this mistake a couple of times, so it bears correction. The second prom was not a school function, nor was it a state or federally funded school event. It was a private function. This doesn't excuse any bigotry involved, but it does, so far as I know, put it well outside of the reach of the law.

We don't know to what extent the second function falls within the jurisdiction of the law. The initial judge specifically included the parent-run prom within his ruling, suggesting that there is a deeper connection than one being public and another private. So, while I seriously doubt a lawsuit could be made against the hosts of the functions, the district involvement in them is probably enough that they could be subject to a lawsuit.

Think of it like this: A district could be subject to a lawsuit if they booked a school trip to a theme park that didn't admit <insert minority>. They don't run the park, and have no say in its policy, but they chose to support it, violating the rights of some.

The school definitely had some involvement with the two proms. The question is whether or not their involvement with the first private one completely ceased when it was "cancelled." If it did, the case will be harder to make. But assuming any of their support carried over to the "secret" prom, such as with a guest list, the ACLU could win a lawsuit against them.

And if they [the ACLU] can manage to get someone to testify that the officials were aware of the trick, they'd have a lot of difficulty defending their [the district's] case.

Edited, Apr 6th 2010 1:02pm by idiggory

I believe the comment the judge was making was due to the second prom being funded with school prom funds. So that one was canceled as well, and a full private prom was held, which the judge never addressed.