Mississippi School does the right thing: Bans prom due to Lesbian couple attending.

[CurveLight]

Lesbian teen sues to force school to hold prom - Yahoo! News Schools continue to go down hill.

Gee.....do you think there are any links to the 26% drop-out rate and outright bigotry? Stoopid is as Stoopid does.

 

[CurveLight]

what? a girl wearing a tux?

what's next? girls wearing pants?

300 years from now some high school kids are going to be digging through archives of the Paradox Age and juxtapose people complaining about a female wearing a tux to people discussing all the dead in iraq and afghanistan. Their entire term paper will consist of that comparison followed by:

WTF?

No wonder the American Empire collapsed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lol....you obviously don't know what "strawman" means. Let's break this down as much as possible:

1. The lesbian students did not violate any school policy.

2. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is as much against the law as discrimination based on skin color.

3. It does not matter if people are born gay or not. It does not justify discrimination against them.

1.The Itawamba County school district's policy requires that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex. So they did in fact seek to violate policy.

2. tell that to the citixens of California who struck down same sex marriage.

3. Choice has a lot to do with it. They chose to be lesbians and they chose to attempt to violate policy.

1. First you said they violated the policy then change it saying they sought to violate. Is that your final answer?

2. Tyranny by the majority is why the Constitution was created, and it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Every state that denies same sex couples is guilty of violating the Constitution.

3. Choice is completely irrelevant. An adult American Citizen should not be punished for choosing a sexual orientation some do not agree with. By your logic if the majority disapproved of christian churches they would be good Americans if they sought to stop church services.

1. Fact is dumbass they intended to violate policy, however since the prom was canceled no policy was violated. Why is that you liberal idiots need to have every little thing explained to you? I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with ******* children.

2. Are you saying a majority vote in this country is akin to tyanny?

3. Your analogy is lame. Does the 1st amendment mean anything to you? Choice is very relevant, when you chose an abominable lifestyle then you accepted all that goes with it. No matter what you clowns do to validate your sick twisted perversions, right minded people will reject it every time and it has clearly been demonstrated in California.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think they should have just bought their tickets and gone to the prom. Then the school board could call the cops and had them arrested...it would have made a stronger statement. And how awesome to have such drama at a prom...usually a boring dance full of drunks.

You're an idiot.

 

[manifold]

why would parents want to send their child to a place that preaches and teaches that their lifestyle is not appropriate.

To stir up a hornet's nest of course.

I love such posts....it's the old "blame the victims" card....I bet you say that to rape victims and would have said it to Rosa Parks too.

You'd lose that bet.

 

[CurveLight]

1.The Itawamba County school district's policy requires that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex. So they did in fact seek to violate policy.

2. tell that to the citixens of California who struck down same sex marriage.

3. Choice has a lot to do with it. They chose to be lesbians and they chose to attempt to violate policy.

1. First you said they violated the policy then change it saying they sought to violate. Is that your final answer?

2. Tyranny by the majority is why the Constitution was created, and it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Every state that denies same sex couples is guilty of violating the Constitution.

3. Choice is completely irrelevant. An adult American Citizen should not be punished for choosing a sexual orientation some do not agree with. By your logic if the majority disapproved of christian churches they would be good Americans if they sought to stop church services.

1. Fact is dumbass they intended to violate policy, however since the prom was canceled no policy was violated. Why is that you liberal idiots need to have every little thing explained to you? I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with ******* children.

2. Are you saying a majority vote in this country is akin to tyanny?

3. Your analogy is lame. Does the 1st amendment mean anything to you? Choice is very relevant, when you chose an abominable lifestyle then you accepted all that goes with it. No matter what you clowns do to validate your sick twisted perversions, right minded people will reject it every time and it has clearly been demonstrated in California.

1. Haha....you completely fucked up by claiming they violated the policy so when I point out they didn't you want to spin it to you explaining something? Rotfl! Pay attention you logic allergic parasite: the policy is illegal. That is the whole point. Even the Board knows it is illegal and that is why they cancelled prom.

2. In terms of civil rights yes, a vote by majority is tyranny. The Constitution was designed specifically to avoid majority rule.

3. Holy fireballs! I need a new irony meter! You are the one pissing all over the 1st Amendment with your tears of bigotry. It does not matter if you personally find a choice morally acceptable. The 1st Amendment was designed to afford people freedom from punishment by dickheads like you who think you have some God given authority to be on the Crotch Watch and get to dictate personal choices for other consenting adults.

It's too bad you don't have access to the internet so you could learn Constitutional basics.

 

[rightwinger]

2. In terms of civil rights yes, a vote by majority is tyranny. The Constitution was designed specifically to avoid majority rule.

Its like the old saying:

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1. First you said they violated the policy then change it saying they sought to violate. Is that your final answer?

2. Tyranny by the majority is why the Constitution was created, and it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Every state that denies same sex couples is guilty of violating the Constitution.

3. Choice is completely irrelevant. An adult American Citizen should not be punished for choosing a sexual orientation some do not agree with. By your logic if the majority disapproved of christian churches they would be good Americans if they sought to stop church services.

1. Fact is dumbass they intended to violate policy, however since the prom was canceled no policy was violated. Why is that you liberal idiots need to have every little thing explained to you? I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with ******* children.

2. Are you saying a majority vote in this country is akin to tyanny?

3. Your analogy is lame. Does the 1st amendment mean anything to you? Choice is very relevant, when you chose an abominable lifestyle then you accepted all that goes with it. No matter what you clowns do to validate your sick twisted perversions, right minded people will reject it every time and it has clearly been demonstrated in California.

1. Haha....you completely fucked up by claiming they violated the policy so when I point out they didn't you want to spin it to you explaining something? Rotfl! Pay attention you logic allergic parasite: the policy is illegal. That is the whole point. Even the Board knows it is illegal and that is why they cancelled prom.

2. In terms of civil rights yes, a vote by majority is tyranny. The Constitution was designed specifically to avoid majority rule.

3. Holy fireballs! I need a new irony meter! You are the one pissing all over the 1st Amendment with your tears of bigotry. It does not matter if you personally find a choice morally acceptable. The 1st Amendment was designed to afford people freedom from punishment by dickheads like you who think you have some God given authority to be on the Crotch Watch and get to dictate personal choices for other consenting adults.

It's too bad you don't have access to the internet so you could learn Constitutional basics.

1. I'm not sure I did claim they violated policy, but if I did, so what? You never err? Prove the policy is illegal.

2. Isn't Presidents as well as most politicians elected by the majority of votes? And you call that tyranny? I think you should read Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution before you make a complete and utter fool out of yourself.

3. Freedom of association

Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.

 

[CurveLight]

2. In terms of civil rights yes, a vote by majority is tyranny. The Constitution was designed specifically to avoid majority rule.

Its like the old saying:

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

Dumbasses like lonestar would respond by saying:

"How do you know the wolves aren't vegetarians?"

 

[CurveLight]

1. Fact is dumbass they intended to violate policy, however since the prom was canceled no policy was violated. Why is that you liberal idiots need to have every little thing explained to you? I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with ******* children.

2. Are you saying a majority vote in this country is akin to tyanny?

3. Your analogy is lame. Does the 1st amendment mean anything to you? Choice is very relevant, when you chose an abominable lifestyle then you accepted all that goes with it. No matter what you clowns do to validate your sick twisted perversions, right minded people will reject it every time and it has clearly been demonstrated in California.

1. Haha....you completely fucked up by claiming they violated the policy so when I point out they didn't you want to spin it to you explaining something? Rotfl! Pay attention you logic allergic parasite: the policy is illegal. That is the whole point. Even the Board knows it is illegal and that is why they cancelled prom.

2. In terms of civil rights yes, a vote by majority is tyranny. The Constitution was designed specifically to avoid majority rule.

3. Holy fireballs! I need a new irony meter! You are the one pissing all over the 1st Amendment with your tears of bigotry. It does not matter if you personally find a choice morally acceptable. The 1st Amendment was designed to afford people freedom from punishment by dickheads like you who think you have some God given authority to be on the Crotch Watch and get to dictate personal choices for other consenting adults.

It's too bad you don't have access to the internet so you could learn Constitutional basics.

1. I'm not sure I did claim they violated policy, but if I did, so what? You never err? Prove the policy is illegal.

2. Isn't Presidents as well as most politicians elected by the majority of votes? And you call that tyranny? I think you should read Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution before you make a complete and utter fool out of yourself.

3. Freedom of association

Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.

1. The obvious evidence it's illegal is how the Board cancelled prom and went out of their way to not mention the gay students. If it was legal they would have had the prom then placed barney fife at the door to make sure all entering tuxedos were breast free.

2. Try to pay attention. I said: IN TERMS OF CIVIL RIGHTS.

3. You cannot compare a public school to either of those cases. A public school is not Free Association you dumbass.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1. Haha....you completely fucked up by claiming they violated the policy so when I point out they didn't you want to spin it to you explaining something? Rotfl! Pay attention you logic allergic parasite: the policy is illegal. That is the whole point. Even the Board knows it is illegal and that is why they cancelled prom.

2. In terms of civil rights yes, a vote by majority is tyranny. The Constitution was designed specifically to avoid majority rule.

3. Holy fireballs! I need a new irony meter! You are the one pissing all over the 1st Amendment with your tears of bigotry. It does not matter if you personally find a choice morally acceptable. The 1st Amendment was designed to afford people freedom from punishment by dickheads like you who think you have some God given authority to be on the Crotch Watch and get to dictate personal choices for other consenting adults.

It's too bad you don't have access to the internet so you could learn Constitutional basics.

1. I'm not sure I did claim they violated policy, but if I did, so what? You never err? Prove the policy is illegal.

2. Isn't Presidents as well as most politicians elected by the majority of votes? And you call that tyranny? I think you should read Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution before you make a complete and utter fool out of yourself.

3. Freedom of association

Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.

1. The obvious evidence it's illegal is how the Board cancelled prom and went out of their way to not mention the gay students. If it was legal they would have had the prom then placed barney fife at the door to make sure all entering tuxedos were breast free.

2. Try to pay attention. I said: IN TERMS OF CIVIL RIGHTS.

3. You cannot compare a public school to either of those cases. A public school is not Free Association you dumbass.

1. Sheer speculation on your part.

2. Pay attention - Proposition 8 nuff said.

3. Sure you can, and I did.

 

[CurveLight]

1. I'm not sure I did claim they violated policy, but if I did, so what? You never err? Prove the policy is illegal.

2. Isn't Presidents as well as most politicians elected by the majority of votes? And you call that tyranny? I think you should read Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution before you make a complete and utter fool out of yourself.

3. Freedom of association

Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.

1. The obvious evidence it's illegal is how the Board cancelled prom and went out of their way to not mention the gay students. If it was legal they would have had the prom then placed barney fife at the door to make sure all entering tuxedos were breast free.

2. Try to pay attention. I said: IN TERMS OF CIVIL RIGHTS.

3. You cannot compare a public school to either of those cases. A public school is not Free Association you dumbass.

1. Sheer speculation on your part.

2. Pay attention - Proposition 8 nuff said.

3. Sure you can, and I did.

Wow.

 

[del]

At least one supporter has offered to help McMillen and her classmates hold an alternate prom.

New Orleans hotel owner Sean Cummings told The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson he was so disappointed with the school board's decision he offered to transport the students in buses to the city and host a free prom at one of his properties.

"New Orleans, we're a joyful culture and a creative culture here and, if the school doesn't change its mind, we'd be delighted to offer them a prom in New Orleans," he told the newspaper. "Concluding your high school experience should be a joyful one. One shouldn't conclude that experience with all their friends on a negative note."

Lesbian teen sues to force school to hold prom - Yahoo! News

 

[bodecea]

1. The obvious evidence it's illegal is how the Board cancelled prom and went out of their way to not mention the gay students. If it was legal they would have had the prom then placed barney fife at the door to make sure all entering tuxedos were breast free.

2. Try to pay attention. I said: IN TERMS OF CIVIL RIGHTS.

3. You cannot compare a public school to either of those cases. A public school is not Free Association you dumbass.

1. Sheer speculation on your part.

2. Pay attention - Proposition 8 nuff said.

3. Sure you can, and I did.

Wow.

What does Prop 8 in California have to do with a prom in Mississippi???????

 

[Ravi]

At least one supporter has offered to help McMillen and her classmates hold an alternate prom.

New Orleans hotel owner Sean Cummings told The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson he was so disappointed with the school board's decision he offered to transport the students in buses to the city and host a free prom at one of his properties.

"New Orleans, we're a joyful culture and a creative culture here and, if the school doesn't change its mind, we'd be delighted to offer them a prom in New Orleans," he told the newspaper. "Concluding your high school experience should be a joyful one. One shouldn't conclude that experience with all their friends on a negative note."

Lesbian teen sues to force school to hold prom - Yahoo! News

uh oh, they'll really be exposed to gaydom in NO.

 

[Gadawg73]

Let me give another perspective of the "southern morals" perspective that was spoken about by this thread writer.
I am 55 having lived in the deep south all of my life.
We first saw this when wealthy white families had boys that asked girls to the prom from the other side of the tracks. They claimed that was immoral and threatened the families of those girls if they accepted.
We next saw blacks wanting to be a part of the white proms and they claimed that was immoral and threatened the blacks for wanting to change the status quo.
Then we saw blacks and whites wanting to ask each other as interracial couples at the proms and they claimed that was immoral. Black boys were threatened for asking white girls to go.
Now we see gay kids wanting to be included in the prom and they claim that is immoral.
What is immoral and outrageous is once again stupid dumbass know it all adults have ruined it for the kids. Where were the higher than thou moral crusaders when those threats were made for decades?
Real men are not afraid of gays or lesbians.

 

[Ava]

Punish everybody who earned that event, for one couple who were not breaking any laws? Talk about miscarriage of justice.

 

[rightwinger]

Punish everybody who earned that event, for one couple who were not breaking any laws? Talk about miscarriage of justice.

They are doing worse than that.

They are singling out one student and pointing at her as the reason nobody else could have a prom

 

[Barb]

1. First you said they violated the policy then change it saying they sought to violate. Is that your final answer?

2. Tyranny by the majority is why the Constitution was created, and it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Every state that denies same sex couples is guilty of violating the Constitution.

3. Choice is completely irrelevant. An adult American Citizen should not be punished for choosing a sexual orientation some do not agree with. By your logic if the majority disapproved of christian churches they would be good Americans if they sought to stop church services.

1. Fact is dumbass they intended to violate policy, however since the prom was canceled no policy was violated. Why is that you liberal idiots need to have every little thing explained to you? I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with ******* children.

2. Are you saying a majority vote in this country is akin to tyanny?

3. Your analogy is lame. Does the 1st amendment mean anything to you? Choice is very relevant, when you chose an abominable lifestyle then you accepted all that goes with it. No matter what you clowns do to validate your sick twisted perversions, right minded people will reject it every time and it has clearly been demonstrated in California.

1. Haha....you completely fucked up by claiming they violated the policy so when I point out they didn't you want to spin it to you explaining something? Rotfl! Pay attention you logic allergic parasite: the policy is illegal. That is the whole point. Even the Board knows it is illegal and that is why they cancelled prom.

2. In terms of civil rights yes, a vote by majority is tyranny. The Constitution was designed specifically to avoid majority rule.

3. Holy fireballs! I need a new irony meter! You are the one pissing all over the 1st Amendment with your tears of bigotry. It does not matter if you personally find a choice morally acceptable. The 1st Amendment was designed to afford people freedom from punishment by dickheads like you who think you have some God given authority to be on the Crotch Watch and get to dictate personal choices for other consenting adults.

It's too bad you don't have access to the internet so you could learn Constitutional basics.

:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CurveLight again.

 

[Cal]

US. Barney Retard,
You're dispicable..You really think it was "the right thing to do?!" What if it was you're daughter?!
I seriously don't get you right wingers..You say 'If you don't like Christianity, Don't be a Christian" but do not hold the same standard for Gays. If you don't like Gay people, Don't be Gay. But why should we deny them equal rights?!