The judge ruled that the girls First Amendment rights were violated, which sets a precedent for other schools. But he wouldn't order the school to hold a prom as he's got no legal basis to make them if they don't want to.
Assuming he is referring to her intention to wear a tuxedo. With this as a precedent, how can any attire that does not meet the definition of public nudity be forbidden? It's all about self-expression after all. On this principle obscenity & bigotry can be expressed in clothing, and forbidding it is a violation of First Amendment rights.
Wearing a tuxedo does not impinge on anyone else's rights – if it does, why are boys allowed to wear them?
Wearing a t-shirt saying "I hate niggers" is in a totally different league from this. Celia makes good points.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
So, I see the judge ruled in favor I the lesbian girl whose prom was cancelled.
- 24/03/2010 07:38:13 AM
703 Views
You're both right.
- 24/03/2010 10:34:50 AM
535 Views
The judge has effectively struck down dress codes in public schools
- 24/03/2010 11:43:39 AM
544 Views
Methinks you're extrapolating a little overmuch.
- 24/03/2010 12:24:03 PM
567 Views
well since higher courts have up held dress codes I don't think we need to worry to much
- 24/03/2010 03:20:17 PM
471 Views
I want to see what an obscene tuxedo would look like on a woman.....
- 24/03/2010 05:24:57 PM
630 Views
It's airbrushed on. 
- 25/03/2010 07:04:12 AM
436 Views
- 25/03/2010 07:04:12 AM
436 Views