Utah High School Student Told To Cover Her Shoulders

[Esmeralda]

A dress code is one thing.The dress the young lady is wearing would be proper in the 1950s. It is not provocative or suggestive in any way.

Yea these hicks need to get with the times. I am pretty sure the US fought World War Two for the right to abolish school dress codes. Didn't Martin Luther King have a section about permitting two inch shoulder straps in his "I have a dream speech"?

If this isn't oppression, I don't know what is. Can legal charges be filed?

Your post is just totally idiotic. Get a life. My God! You are bringing in gay and lesbians into this discussion, WWII, MLK....you're sound like a nut case. Say something sensible. Are you 80? Do you think young girls in 2015 should dress like they did 65 years ago? Do you dress like men did in the 50s? Do you wear slacks, a white shirt, and a suit coat every day? Because that is what most men wore in the 50s.

LOL. I like how you treat political and moral issues like it is a fashion trend. "OMG dress codes are SOOO 1950". Yea, what a convincing case.

Why don't you tell me more?

I did not say a word about dress codes being passe. I said that the dress in question is suitable for 65 years ago. Don't put words in my mouth. As the OP stated in the thread title, the dress code in this case is BACKWARD, goes back to the 50s, which is ridiculous 65 years later. And you think what a woman wears is a political and moral issue? You are one of those backward men who think women should not have a say in what they wear, presumabley.

You liberal self-righteous busybodies were the one that made it a political and moral issue by suggesting clearly defined dress codes are, "OMG sexism, what a setback for women's rights! we aren't sex objects, something must be done!".

 

[Steinlight]

Wow, just wow, look at the bigoted sexist men enforcing sexist standards by telling women what to wear, oh wait.

Miss Bromley insisted that all of the students are aware of the school's dress code for formal events, which prohibits teens from wearing backless dresses below the shoulder blades, outfits featuring straps narrower than 2inches or garments with a cleavage.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I love Utah. Children are safe there.

 

[TooTall]

A dress code is one thing.The dress the young lady is wearing would be proper in the 1950s. It is not provocative or suggestive in any way.

Yea these hicks need to get with the times. I am pretty sure the US fought World War Two for the right to abolish school dress codes. Didn't Martin Luther King have a section about permitting two inch shoulder straps in his "I have a dream speech"?

If this isn't oppression, I don't know what is. Can legal charges be filed?

I am equally as sure that the right to abolish dress codes was not one of the reasons the US fought World War Two. That is patently absurd!

 

[TooTall]

I think someone was wrong to label that particular dress unacceptable but I do not have a problem with a reasonable dress code. It is a judgement call, and I disagree with the judgement in this case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a thread about a dress code in a Utah school, yet someone who does not care, supposedly, about homosexuals derails the thread by posting about homosexuals.

That someone with an anti-gay agenda attacks people she does not like and then limits AIDS transmission only to gays, although it is the heterosexuals who transmit the disease in overwhelming numbers.

That someone is mentally disturbed.

 

[DriftingSand]

If she covered her shoulders and exposed her boobs they would have given her an award for being "liberated."

Not in Utah.

I wouldn't have thought that they would suck up to the gay activists but that's exactly what they're doing so I guess they've become "enlightened" to the new age agenda.

More and more people will become accepting quite frankly because as more people come out to their families, families will call for more acceptance on the matter. Most people are protective of their family members and most people want their family members to be treated well in society.

I Know you don't like gay people, I am not sure why it bothers you so much.

I don't give two hoots about queers one way or the other. It's the aggressive gay agenda and their insistence that I see homosexuality as somehow "normal" that I have a problem with. If they want to pass AIDS back and forth in the privacy of their own home I really couldn't care less.

LOL...of course you don't care....someone forced you to post three times about homosexuals in a thread that has nothing to do with homosexuals- because you don't care 'about queers'

In case you haven't noticed the underlying topic is an issue of morality and what folks deem acceptable vs. unacceptable. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy the Mormon mentality when, on the one hand, they want a girl to cover her shoulders while, on the other hand, they're calling for total acceptance of the queer lifestyle. Must I spell it out for you?

 

[DriftingSand]

This is a thread about a dress code in a Utah school, yet someone who does not care, supposedly, about homosexuals derails the thread by posting about homosexuals.

That someone with an anti-gay agenda attacks people she does not like and then limits AIDS transmission only to gays, although it is the heterosexuals who transmit the disease in overwhelming numbers.

That someone is mentally disturbed.

See post above. I can't believe folks are too dense to see the REAL topic or the GREATER topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DS, there is no conundrum.

The real moral problem is that you are trying to impose your sense of morality on others.

No one is forcing you or any one else to marry someone of your own sex.

 

[DriftingSand]

DS, there is no conundrum.

The real moral problem is that you are trying to impose your sense of morality on others.

No one is forcing you or any one else to marry someone of your own sex.

But they're trying to force society to accept YOUR/THEIR sense of morality upon an unwilling society. A society has a right to define a societal code of ethics and morals. Queerism has always been recognized as a mental disorder and a deviant practice. Just because you and a few leftist/activist judges say otherwise doesn't change the facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DS, there is no conundrum.

The real moral problem is that you are trying to impose your sense of morality on others.

No one is forcing you or any one else to marry someone of your own sex.

But they're trying to force society to accept YOUR/THEIR sense of morality upon an unwilling society. A society has a right to define a societal code of ethics and morals. Queerism has always been recognized as a mental disorder and a deviant practice. Just because you and a few leftist/activist judges say otherwise doesn't change the facts.

No, they are not. Society cannot dictate "a societal code of ethics and morals" that violates constitutional liberties. Homosexuality has not always "been recognized as mental disorder and deviant practice" in human society. That you don't like it does not change the facts.

 

[mdk]

You're shocked that conservative Mormons in Utah are prude?

They're not conservative anymore. The Mormon Church is in the process of embracing homosexuality and gay marriage. They can join the ranks of half of the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Episcopalians, and the Unitarians (among others).

No, the Mormon Church has stated they will support anti-discrimination laws such as housing and employment for gays. They stated rather plainly that they will still oppose same sex marriage.

 

[Mertex]

A dress code is one thing.The dress the young lady is wearing would be proper in the 1950s. It is not provocative or suggestive in any way.

Yea these hicks need to get with the times. I am pretty sure the US fought World War Two for the right to abolish school dress codes. Didn't Martin Luther King have a section about permitting two inch shoulder straps in his "I have a dream speech"?

If this isn't oppression, I don't know what is. Can legal charges be filed?

I still can't imagine any school in this day and time having such a strict dress code. I'm not so surprised over the dress code as I am over the strictness of it....I know if they didn't have some sort of dress code some teenagers would or could come with a totally outrageous outfit, like see-through, plunging necklines, or something else more provocative, but the dress this girl is wearing is suitable for Sunday School....IMHO!

 

[Mertex]

I love Utah. Children are safe there.

How so? Maybe they have their own definition of "crime" too?

Utah man pleads guilty to child sex abuse charges in Plaquemines Parish New Orleans - WDSU Home


In April, a 13-year-old girl described to a Utah jury the horror of her father marrying her off to a 48 year old man when a prosecutor asked if she could have fabricated having sex with older men.
Teen Brides


SALT LAKE CITY -- Cases of internet sex predators and child pornography have skyrocketed in Utah to record-breaking levels, authorities said.

"They've shockingly increased this year," said Ken Wallentine, the Utah Attorney General's Chief of Law Enforcement. "Last year at this time, we had made 32 arrests. Thus far this year in that same six-month period, we're at 76 arrests."

Internet sex crimes caseload skyrockets in Utah KSL.com

 

[Mertex]

A dress code is one thing.The dress the young lady is wearing would be proper in the 1950s. It is not provocative or suggestive in any way.

Yea these hicks need to get with the times. I am pretty sure the US fought World War Two for the right to abolish school dress codes. Didn't Martin Luther King have a section about permitting two inch shoulder straps in his "I have a dream speech"?

If this isn't oppression, I don't know what is. Can legal charges be filed?

I am equally as sure that the right to abolish dress codes was not one of the reasons the US fought World War Two. That is patently absurd!

That's true....Utah seems to be stuck in an time warp closer to World War I.

 

[Mertex]

Oh crap....I just voted for the wrong one.......... Sorry!

What's your excuse Debunker?

 

[Syriusly]

Not in Utah.

I wouldn't have thought that they would suck up to the gay activists but that's exactly what they're doing so I guess they've become "enlightened" to the new age agenda.

More and more people will become accepting quite frankly because as more people come out to their families, families will call for more acceptance on the matter. Most people are protective of their family members and most people want their family members to be treated well in society.

I Know you don't like gay people, I am not sure why it bothers you so much.

I don't give two hoots about queers one way or the other. It's the aggressive gay agenda and their insistence that I see homosexuality as somehow "normal" that I have a problem with. If they want to pass AIDS back and forth in the privacy of their own home I really couldn't care less.

LOL...of course you don't care....someone forced you to post three times about homosexuals in a thread that has nothing to do with homosexuals- because you don't care 'about queers'

In case you haven't noticed the underlying topic is an issue of morality and what folks deem acceptable vs. unacceptable. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy the Mormon mentality when, on the one hand, they want a girl to cover her shoulders while, on the other hand, they're calling for total acceptance of the queer lifestyle. Must I spell it out for you?

You spent three posts telling us how wrong homosexuality is and finished it up with saying you don't care- all in a thread that has nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[Syriusly]

DS, there is no conundrum.

The real moral problem is that you are trying to impose your sense of morality on others.

No one is forcing you or any one else to marry someone of your own sex.

But they're trying to force society to accept YOUR/THEIR sense of morality upon an unwilling society. A society has a right to define a societal code of ethics and morals. Queerism has always been recognized as a mental disorder and a deviant practice. Just because you and a few leftist/activist judges say otherwise doesn't change the facts.

"queerism" whatever the hell that is- has never been recognized as a mental disorder.

homosexuality was considered a mental disorder for approximately 20 years- and has not been considered a mental disorder since 1973- and since your math skills are probably not real strong- that would be 42 years.

And again- your focus on homosexuality in a thread that has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Is there some particular reason you wanted to derail this thread?

 

[airplanemechanic]

I think 99% of Americans only PRAY that their daughter wears a dress like that.

 

[Nosmo King]

There's no room on that Lawrence Welk back up singer dress to stitch a scarlet A should the occasion arise,