Lesbian Student Fights for Yearbook Tuxedo Photo

[Miles]

JACKSON, Miss. — Everyone at Wesson Attendance Center knows 17-year-old Ceara Sturgis is gay because she's never tried to hide it.

But when Sturgis — an honor student, trumpet player and goalie on the school's soccer team — wanted her senior photograph in a tuxedo used in the 2009-10 yearbook, school officials balked. Traditionally, female students dress in drapes and males wear tuxedos.

Now, the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi has gotten involved, issuing a demand letter to Principal Ronald Greer to publish the picture of Sturgis in the tuxedo. The ACLU says it's giving the school until Oct. 23 to respond before pursuing court action, said Kristy L. Bennett, the ACLU's legal director.

Sturgis said she should get to decide how she looks in the senior photo.

"I feel like I'm not important, that the school is dismissing who I am as a gay student and that they don't even care about me. All I want is to be able to be me, and to be included in the yearbook," Sturgis said in a statement.

source

So, who should prevail?

[Miles]

It would be a great injustice to not allow her to wear the tuxedo, that is, if you believe homosexuality is morally okay. That is the discussion. Once you have the principle, the application follows, but I disagree with the application, because I disagree with the principle.

If I read you correctly, the application of the law can rightfully depend on one's personal principles. Think this little bit of "wisdom" is included in jury instructions?

[Goat]

I just wonder if the school has to worry about her motives for wanting to wear a tux. She wants to wear a tux for her school photo, then let her wear a tux. If she was a straight girl who just liked the way she looked in a tux, I'd say the same thing: if she wants to wear a tux, let her wear it.

Again, you use the phrase "If she was a straight girl". It implies that she's not.

So?? What does that have to do with the cost of tea in china?

Does it matter if a persons orientation is gay , straight, curved or just out right bent?

[Defender of Truth]

If I read you correctly, the application of the law can rightfully depend on one's personal principles. Think this little bit of "wisdom" is included in jury instructions?

I think you may have misread me, but the fault may fall on my account for vagueness.

I'm saying the application of the law is based on the law. If you believe the moral law is that homosexuality is wrong, then you would of course base your application on that principle. However, if you believe homosexuality is okay, you would adjust your application appropriately. The court of law's job is to try to accurately interpret what is right and wrong, what are rights and non-rights, and what is acceptable, and unacceptable.

So?? What does that have to do with the cost of tea in china?

Does it matter if a persons orientation is gay , straight, curved or just out right bent?

My only point here is that it appears as if jrosemary believes lesbianism is not "right" or "correct", which are synonyms of "straight" in the thesaurus in the context in which they were used. I'm not trying to prove anything about the discussion in this statement, only that I'm learning more about jrosemary's personal beliefs by the words she uses to describe Miss Sturgis.

[Miles]

The court of law's job is to try to accurately interpret what is right and wrong, what are rights and non-rights, and what is acceptable, and unacceptable.

While at times a court may have to apply itself in interpreting a particular law, most often this is not necessary. A judge or jury is charged with having a very clear understanding of the applicable law and then determine if in a particular case it was broken or not.

Moral "laws" in the court do not have the same standing as criminal law. The court doesn't care---or at least shouldn't care---about the moral acceptability or unacceptability of an act, only whether or not it violates some secular law.

What is right and wrong, what are rights and non-rights, and what is acceptable, and unacceptable are decided by law makers, not the courts. It shouldn't matter one wit if a person is transvestite, homosexual, bisexual, trisexual, heterosexual, or anything else if a law has not made such sexual orientations a factor in its application.

[Jrosemary]

If I read you correctly, the application of the law can rightfully depend on one's personal principles. Think this little bit of "wisdom" is included in jury instructions?

I think you may have misread me, but the fault may fall on my account for vagueness.

I'm saying the application of the law is based on the law. If you believe the moral law is that homosexuality is wrong, then you would of course base your application on that principle. However, if you believe homosexuality is okay, you would adjust your application appropriately. The court of law's job is to try to accurately interpret what is right and wrong, what are rights and non-rights, and what is acceptable, and unacceptable.

So?? What does that have to do with the cost of tea in china?

Does it matter if a persons orientation is gay , straight, curved or just out right bent?

My only point here is that it appears as if jrosemary believes lesbianism is not "right" or "correct", which are synonyms of "straight" in the thesaurus in the context in which they were used. I'm not trying to prove anything about the discussion in this statement, only that I'm learning more about jrosemary's personal beliefs by the words she uses to describe Miss Sturgis.

JRosemary is a lesbian who loves being curved as opposed to straight . . . not that there's anything wrong with being straight.

[Defender of Truth]

JRosemary is a lesbian who loves being curved as opposed to straight . . . not that there's anything wrong with being straight.

I'm not denying that you love being curved, I'm only admitting that you believe lesbianism is not "right". Again, I'm not saying you don't enjoy being not "right", only that you so believe.

[Coyotero]

I'm not denying that you love being curved, I'm only admitting that you believe lesbianism is not "right". Again, I'm not saying you don't enjoy being not "right", only that you so believe.

I see what you're trying to do here, and I must say sir, it is, for lack of a better term, bogus.

Love is right. It is possibly the only thing that is "right" in this world. Hate, irrational fear, passing judgment, and oppression are wrong. Even when used to support your own bent idea of morality.

Do you really think the gods care who you're bumping fuzzies with?

If we had thrown out our vile misconceptions about what morality was a thousand years ago, and focused on loving each other and working together, we could be exploring the galaxy right now.

[Defender of Truth]

I see what you're trying to do here

Then please share it with us, because the rest of your post reflected ignorance of the knowledge of the purpose of my post. No offense intended.

Do you really think the gods care who you're bumping fuzzies with?

Yup

If we had thrown out our vile misconceptions about what morality was a thousand years ago, and focused on loving each other and working together, we could be exploring the galaxy right now.

And you conclude this because...

[open mind]

I see what you're trying to do here

Then please share it with us, because the rest of your post reflected ignorance of the knowledge of the purpose of my post. No offense intended.

Do you really think the gods care who you're bumping fuzzies with?

Yup

If we had thrown out our vile misconceptions about what morality was a thousand years ago, and focused on loving each other and working together, we could be exploring the galaxy right now.

And you conclude this because...

The Dark ages. To name one example.

Burning of books, declarations that science is evil and witchcraft, give all your time and money to the church, convert or die, wage holy war on anyone who disagrees with your views, love thy neighbor(unless their a homo, different religion, different race, different, different different).........the list goes on and on.

Back on topic....Regardless of a person's sexuality, they should be able to wear what they want. If I don't want to wear a dress I shouldn't have to. Maybe i'll look better in a tuxedo than the guy i'm going with. This social norm crap has gotten completely out of hand. We need to stop letting the squares run everything.

[Defender of Truth]

If we had thrown out our vile misconceptions about what morality was a thousand years ago, and focused on loving each other and working together, we could be exploring the galaxy right now.

And you conclude this because...

The Dark ages. To name one example

You need to show how the Dark ages prove that "we could be exploring the galaxy right now if we had thrown out the vile misconceptions about what morality was".

If I don't want to wear a dress I shouldn't have to.

Are you giving me an objective standard to which society must conform to? I thought you didn't believe in those...


Edit: For clarification.