HS Lesbian Sues Over Locker Ban

NY Post ^ | 2002-12-18 | Reuters

[Karsus]

This is from a few posts up. Please point out where she made a choice, it looks to me like she did nothing wrong.

"Ashly said only a few friends knew she was a lesbian. But one day, she said, Gill overheard a student say Ashly was a lesbian. Ashly said she was told by the teacher: "Nobody needs to know that."

That night, the lawsuit said, the teacher called Ashly's mother, Amelia, and said some of the students felt uncomfortable with Ashly being in the locker room.

Ashly's mother asked whether Ashly had ever acted inappropriately, the suit said. The teacher said, "No," and agreed to call if there were any problems. She did not call again, the suit said.

The next day, according to the suit, the teacher told Ashly to report to the principal's office instead of gym class.

Ashly's mother came to school to discuss the schedule change and found out her daughter had been sitting in the principal's office during gym period for a week and a half, the suit said. She was told the principal had decided to bar Ashly from attending gym, the suit alleges. "

[Hemingway's Ghost]

See, thats the whole in your argument. This girl made a choice and is upset because she had to live with the ramifications of that choice. You liberals always think that there should not be any accountability for your choices. Simple, make a choice and be prepared to live with the consiquences. Not so complicated after all is it.

The girl made a choice, however misguided you or anyone else think her choice was. The law states that people who make this choice cannot be punished by being discriminated against for making this choice. This case is about determining whether or not she was.

Read the stories---the girl didn't do anything. She was punished for what "might" happen. Do you think being barred from attending gym class is an appropriate consequence for choosing lesbianism? Arguably the law doesn't think so . . .

Further, "you liberals"? What the hell do you mean by that?

[wimpycat]

This girl made a choice and is upset because she had to live with the ramifications of that choice. You liberals always think that there should not be any accountability for your choices. Simple, make a choice and be prepared to live with the consiquences. Not so complicated after all is it.

The school made a choice to punish a girl who did nothing wrong, and will live with the consequences...and then, through legal precedent, we'll all live with the consequences, a gay legal victory. YOU will be forced to live with the consequences.

It cuts both ways. Not so very complicated, is it? Unwarranted punishment is just life, isn't it?

[jjm2111]

So let me get this straight.....

Five Jets fans beat up a Dophin's fan and that's assault.

Five straight guys beat up a gay guy and thats "natures [sic] way of cleansing itself."

Makes you think though, doesn't it.

Sure does. Makes me think you're smoking a little too much of the Libertarians' stash.

To me nothing is more cowardly and lacking in honor than ganging up on someone for kicks.

[Karsus]

Who gets to decide what the Bible means? If you have 'Christian' groups wanting to ban drinking when one of the miracles that Jesus did was to turn water into wine, yet you still have people say that ANY amount of drink is sinful.

[JMP]

I understand your point but still think that you are wrong. We have a difference of opinion.
.
As far as.......You might want to try it - you'll look like less of a self-important jackass...........
.
A lot of the opinions expressed here makes it hard to be humble at times. I use these little qwips to help myself from saying what I'm really thinking. Don't take offense.

[wimpycat]

A lot of the opinions expressed here makes it hard to be humble at times. I use these little qwips to help myself from saying what I'm really thinking. Don't take offense.

If you made him feel uncomfortable, I'm afraid you'll have to go to a different thread. We can't have folks feeling uncomfortable around here.

(Levity)

[JMP]

I did not mention Biblical law. I generally don't like to see people wear their religion on their sleeve. Natural law is the law of the physical world. All things are subject to it. Nobody decides, it just is. The inability of homosexuals to propagate themselves, thus removing the deviant trait from the species, is a good illustration of natural law. Since you brought it up, Biblical law mirrors the natural law perfectly. Makes me think it was by design.

[DonaldC]

I understand your point. Although I believe that drinking like anything in excess is bad, I do not prescribe to the opinion that some have that Jesus made grape juice (even though I have not done an . In fact, some of the apostles spoke of its benefits by discussing how it was good for calming an upset stomach. It should be noted however, that there are some people who should obstain from it all together, like pastors and deacons, for example. So Jesus made wine. If people set their standard of conduct high enough to not drink at all, good for them. As far as homosexuality/lesbianism, the Bible is extremely clear, it is an obimination...Leviticus 20:13. And Jesus did not turn a hetero into a homosexual.

As far as who makes the judgement, in the end it is the self will of the individual. If I choose not to drink, so be it. If I choose to be hetero, so be it. Should I be able to force you to do either, or to pay for my consequences? I think not.

This comes down to what is a society going to cling to and what it is going to condemn. Should we be accomidate all the wishes of the homosexual? We don't the drunk! So if folks want to engage in this behavior, so be it. But don't make the rest of society (the better than 95%) do out of the way to make the 5% feel warm and fuzzy.....

[JMP]

..........Please point out where she made a choice, it looks to me like she did nothing wrong.........
.
Karsus, The choice was to become a lesbian. If this was not a choice then the young lady has more serious problems than her hurt feelings to deal with. After all, to decide at the tender age of 14 that all hopes of a normal heterosexual lifestyle are impossible to achieve, then she is experienced beyond her years or emotional capacity.

[JMP]

........The law states that people who make this choice cannot be punished by being discriminated against for making this choice...........
.
The reaction of the sexually normal group of girls is as normal as would the reaction to undressing in front of heterosexual males. Their discomfort is perfectly understandable. They choose to not continue this forced practice. The school acted appropriately. Any judgement that forces the continuance of this practice should result in an impeachment.

Look HM, I believe you are hitting on the constitutional principle, simply stated, that the rights of the individual can not be trampled by the many. It seems we do not agree on who the individual is.
.
.........Further, "you liberals"? What the hell do you mean by that?............
.
I honestly felt like I was arguing with a liberal. I admit that sometimes I get liberals and neocons mixed up.

[MadIvan]

Whose rights are being trumped? Since when does anyone (well not you, you're British) have a Constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable?

You're missing the point. Parents pay for that school, their kids participate in it, surely they should have a say in how it is run, and what policies it adopts.

If it were a private school and parents there were paying for it in a more direct fashion, you would be in no position to argue this point.

Your claims are just wrong. The girl certainly was being prevented from attending classes, was being prevented from "getting an education" in so much as those who developed the curriculum consider physical education part of "getting an education," and she was being prevented from participating in a school activity---gym class. You completely whiffed.

Then arrangements should be made so she can get changed for class. This does not trump the parents and their kids right to have a say in how their school is run and what policies their school adopts.

Foist a policy upon people whose legislators made such a policy a state law? A law based on the notion that all people deserve to be treated equal? Oh, how horrible . . .

Again you're missing the point. If I start up a men's only club, where men can talk about sports and fishing all day and exclude women, I am breaking your precious "treat equally" clause. But as it's my premises, I am not actually going out and harming anyone, you can clear off.

Similarly, if one student is causing discomfort, it is not unreasonable to ask that student to change elsewhere.

Now it could be she isn't causing discomfort - note, I suggested that they ASK the girls in question how they felt about it. If there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely - because the mother of the lesbian teen paid for that service to be delivered, and thus the school has a responsibility for it to be delivered.

My notion of the statist heart beating in a libertarian chest is very simple: while the libertarians on this board may not agree on everything, at the same time, they have very precise ideas on what the rest of us should be forced to tolerate.

Ivan

[wimpycat]

I still think you're confusing what you think should happen with what probably will happen. The school district will either settle, or else most likely lose the lawsuit, in which case we'll all be forced to live with it, you included.

That's a huge price to pay for a bunch of girls saying they "felt" uncomfortable...not because this little lesbian actually did anything besides be physically present.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Their discomfort is perfectly understandable. They choose to not continue this forced practice. The school acted appropriately. Any judgement that forces the continuance of this practice should result in an impeachment.

The heterosexual girls "chose" nothing---the gym teacher made the choice to exclude this girl from gym class because she was a professed homosexual. That choice, apparently, is against the law. Did you not read the two additional stories I posted on this thread, or did you read them and just fail to recognize this because it doesn't fit in with the point you're trying to make?

Look HM, I believe you are hitting on the constitutional principle, simply stated, that the rights of the individual can not be trampled by the many. It seems we do not agree on who the individual is.

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say something to the effect that the right to remain comfortable at all times shall not be infringed?

I honestly felt like I was arguing with a liberal. I admit that sometimes I get liberals and neocons mixed up.

Well then, I honestly believe you don't know what it means to call someone a liberal. You toss it about like a swear word without knowing what it means. Speaks volumes about you.

[JMP]

wimycat, The victory belonged to the liberals when it was ruled by fiat from the bench that homosexuality was just one form of our "diversity" and therefore a protected behavior to be celebrated. I'm sure you recall the pundits talking endlessly about the slippery slope. Guess what? They were right. We're getting closer to the bottom of that slope every day. There is now nothing that can stop the momentum other than the people shouting "NO MORE, THATS IT, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH". You or I are not going to convince the left that they are wrong. We can't even convince the people here that the liberals are wrong. We have played on the unleveled playing field by their rules to get where we are today. It's not going to get any better by continuing the game under these circumstances. There comes a time when biting and eye gouging mean survival. The legal victory happened years ago and it didn't go our way.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You're missing the point. Parents pay for that school, their kids participate in it, surely they should have a say in how it is run, and what policies it adopts. If it were a private school and parents there were paying for it in a more direct fashion, you would be in no position to argue this point.

I'm afraid you're missing the point---this happened at a public school, not a private school.

Then arrangements should be made so she can get changed for class. This does not trump the parents and their kids right to have a say in how their school is run and what policies their school adopts.

That's not the issue here: the issue is that a girl was denied the ability to attend a class based on what she might do, or what others might think. It never got to the point of an actual solution to the "problem" because the solution to the problem was throwing the girl out of class.

Again you're missing the point. If I start up a men's only club, where men can talk about sports and fishing all day and exclude women, I am breaking your precious "treat equally" clause. But as it's my premises, I am not actually going out and harming anyone, you can clear off.

Public vs. private, Ivan.

Now it could be she isn't causing discomfort - note, I suggested that they ASK the girls in question how they felt about it. If there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely - because the mother of the lesbian teen paid for that service to be delivered, and thus the school has a responsibility for it to be delivered.

What do you mean "if there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely"? That's exactly what happened. The barrier to the girl actually participating in the class was her being sent to the principal's office instead of being allowed to attend gym class. Did you not read the story?

My notion of the statist heart beating in a libertarian chest is very simple: while the libertarians on this board may not agree on everything, at the same time, they have very precise ideas on what the rest of us should be forced to tolerate.

That's because "the rest of you" often equate what you're forced to tolerate as actionable offenses. Nobody's asking the rest of you to tolerate lesbianism. What they're asking you to do is to allow a girl who self-identifies as a lesbian to attend gym class like any other girl could. Her mere presence among "you all" doesn't incite or propogate lesbianism, does it?

[MadIvan]

I'm afraid you're missing the point---this happened at a public school, not a private school.

Do the parents pay for it or not? (They do.) And as they pay for it, do they have a say in it or not?

What do you mean "if there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely"? That's exactly what happened. The barrier to the girl actually participating in the class was her being sent to the principal's office instead of being allowed to attend gym class. Did you not read the story?

You're getting emotional. The ultimate point is whether or not she should be sharing changing rooms with the other girls. I suggested they ask the other girls and their families. You, in your ultimate wisdom, want to impose a policy.

That's because "the rest of you" often equate what you're forced to tolerate as actionable offenses. Nobody's asking the rest of you to tolerate lesbianism. What they're asking you to do is to allow a girl who self-identifies as a lesbian to attend gym class like any other girl could. Her mere presence among "you all" doesn't incite or propogate lesbianism, does it?

Nice try. Propgating lesbianism isn't the issue here. It is a matter of the rights of parents and children to determine how the schools which they pay for are run. You are saying that even if the girls feel uncomfortable, and their parents agree with them, they have NO RIGHTS whatsoever to have the lesbian girl change in another room. You are saying that the parents have to just lump it, and that's all.

I am saying, ask the girls if they want to have her in the same changing room. If not, set up an alternative facility. As gym class is something that takes place (more or less) fully clothed, the "peep show" element which determines why changing rooms are divided in the first place is gone, and thus the girl should be allowed to attend - she's paying for it, after all.

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking homosexuality. If I had a daughter, and she told me she was uncomfortable changing with this girl and her friends felt the same, you would be telling me that in spite of the fact I spent money on the school, I would have no recourse.

Ivan

[wimpycat]

I see you're looking at it from a different perspective than I am. You're looking at it as part of the overall cultural war.

I'm looking at it from a one-on-one human perspective. No matter what my feelings are about homosexuality, if I was given the job of telling a young girl who, from all we know so far, did nothing to these other girls, that she was being relegated to the broom closet to dress out for gym, I couldn't do it. It goes against my conscience and I would refuse to do it. They would have to fire me. Maybe you could look her in the face and tell her, but I couldn't. And I don't think Jesus would do it. Because it's wrong. Jesus would have a lot of other things to say to this young lady, but He'd also have a lot of things to say to those other girls, too, about to treat other people. Because I don't believe that the girls are uncomfortable, I believe they don't like her whether she's a lesbian or not.

I guess it never occurred to anyone to sit down with all of these girls and talk it out. There were other ways to resolve the situation without kicking her out of the locker room.

[wimpycat]

I would be interested to know just how much of this "discomfort" is really coming from the parents, and not the girls themselves.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Do the parents pay for it or not? (They do.) And as they pay for it, do they have a say in it or not?

They do. Parents speak through laws passed by legislatures in their jurisdiction. And in this jurisdiction, a law says you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. That law apparently governs even the operation of schools in this district. Is your zeal to make a point, why is this lost on you?

You're getting emotional. The ultimate point is whether or not she should be sharing changing rooms with the other girls. I suggested they ask the other girls and their families. You, in your ultimate wisdom, want to impose a policy.

I'm hardly getting emotional, but I do seem to be the only one on this thread interested in what actually went on vice what could've happened but didn't.

Nice try. Propgating lesbianism isn't the issue here. It is a matter of the rights of parents and children to determine how the schools which they pay for are run.

In what way is that not being done? The rights of parents aren't even an issue in this case. As far as the story reports, no parent insisted that the lesbian girl be removed from the gym class. The school did. The school acted alone. Again, have you read the story?

You are saying that even if the girls feel uncomfortable, and their parents agree with them, they have NO RIGHTS whatsoever to have the lesbian girl change in another room. You are saying that the parents have to just lump it, and that's all.

So you believe laws or rules should be made based on everyone's personal level of comfort?

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking homosexuality. If I had a daughter, and she told me she was uncomfortable changing with this girl and her friends felt the same, you would be telling me that in spite of the fact I spent money on the school, I would have no recourse.

Say your daughter told you she was uncomfortable changing around Jews. What possible recourse would you have?