Lesbian teen sues to force school to hold canceled prom

posted at 8:50 pm on March 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

The Headlines item is averaging about 100 comments an hour so I guess you guys want to talk (er, keep talking) about this. Offers to host a private prom for the kids are pouring in and the teen herself is getting all kinds of support online and from the media, so I assume there’s going to be a happy ending here. It’s interesting to me mainly as a legal matter: Per the ACLU’s complaint, this is not a discrimination claim. It’s a First Amendment claim, alleging that McMillen would essentially be engaged in a form of speech (“communicative content”) about her orientation in wearing a tuxedo and bringing a girl to the prom. That’s weak — she’s not going to prom to make a statement, she’s going because she wants to dance and have fun with her girlfriend — but because the Equal Protection Clause has never been held to apply to sexual orientation, the ACLU really has no choice but to try the speech argument. Not sure it’ll work, but then the point isn’t to win the suit. It’s to turn up the heat on the school district until the bad publicity makes them cave or, at the very least, scares other districts that might do this into thinking twice. Working like a charm so far. Two videos for you below as illustrations.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

yeah I am absolutely sure he was talking about sexuality issues and biological functions.

Nice deflection Chris. Very nice.

Which part of wives did he leave out in Timothy when he said a Bishop should have one wife, a priori, there were those with more than one, but that didn’t upset him. So now you are arguing for polygamy. very nice, good work.

JP1986UM on March 15, 2010 at 3:08 AM

The government is paying for the schools. Of course they are involved. When parents fund a school themselves, they have greater control over the rules. When parents use taxpayer dollars for the education, then there is more oversight from courts and elected officials.

dedalus on March 14, 2010 at 9:19 PM

At what point do the taxes that the government collects stop being our money? You seem to forget that the government of the United States is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The government does not own anything. All government assets belong to the people.

Since each school is distinct within its community I do not see why the government sees fit to take the money from the people then give it back with stipulations that the people do not agree with.

There have been many polls over the past couple of decades that clearly show that the citizens of this country no longer feel that their government is operating under the consent of the governed. It has taken on a life of its own and become a force of control rather than a public servant. Your statements show exactly how that has come to be.

Hawthorne on March 15, 2010 at 5:40 AM

Should we be surprised? Liberals somehow found a constitutional right for our government to control our health….why wouldn’t they find a constitutional right for this young, aspiring rug-muncher to have a school prom?

olesparkie on March 15, 2010 at 7:46 AM

She is a gofer girl
She really goes for guys
But they don’t go for her
That’s why she’s a gofer girl!

.
.
No wonder the guys don’t go for her.

The Rock on March 15, 2010 at 8:39 AM

yeah I am absolutely sure he was talking about sexuality issues and biological functions.

Well he sure was, when he said

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Nice deflection Chris. Very nice.

“Deflection” would be more in line with your claiming the authority of Scripture for your teaching that opposing homosexuality is like refusing to eat shellfish because we foolishly adhere to archaic teachings, when of course, the Apostolic Church that declared the dietary rules of Judaism were null and void, did preach against sexual libertinism in all its forms.

Which part of wives did he leave out in Timothy when he said a Bishop should have one wife, a priori, there were those with more than one, but that didn’t upset him. So now you are arguing for polygamy. very nice, good work.
JP1986UM on March 15, 2010 at 3:08 AM

St. Paul advised a thing, therefore, a priori, he was not upset at the opposite of what he advised?

And if I commend St. Paul then I endorse the opposite of what he advised??

Perhaps you should restate that to be more clear?

Chris_Balsz on March 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Farm animals? Seriously? If the only thing keeping people in your town from copulating with farm animals is the sight of two women kissing, then, I don’t know man, I think your town might be too far gone.

People need to lighten up. If you think that being in the same room as a gay couple is equivalent to them “rubbing it in your face” then maybe you should just stay indoors. It’ll make life easier for everyone.

wilkeson on March 15, 2010 at 10:58 AM

People need to lighten up. If you think that being in the same room as a gay couple is equivalent to them “rubbing it in your face” then maybe you should just stay indoors. It’ll make life easier for everyone. – wilkeson on March 15, 2010 at 10:58 AM

I agree. I wonder if we will be updated on all the fallout from this mess. Keep us posted HotAir.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9