I hate bigotry. So much.

Redmage · Mar 14, 2010

Bohemianne said:
^ He WAS tried. He doesn't have to be impeached for me to state my argument that he is expected to ACT ethically.

Yes, he was tried. That trial is called "impeachment."

"Impeachment is a formal process in which an elected official is accused of unlawful activity, and which may or may not lead to the removal of that official from office."

And he was not impeached (or "tried," if you prefer a different word for the same thing) for any ethical lapse. That would not be legal. He was impeached on charges of lying to Congress.

Yes, the public expect certain standards of ethics from public officials. But they have no legal recourse if officials don't meet those standards. All they can do is refuse to re-elect (which they did not do with Bill Clinton).

And this applies to public officials - people who hold certain jobs that report to the public. Which means that none if it has anything to do with your mistaken idea that government has the right to regulate interpersonal relations in general.

NO. Drivers applying for license do not recite "Code of Ethics" to practice driving. I am referring to professionals or privileged people, so it was you whom I am laughing at. It means you are not paying attention.

No, it means you're just wrong. In which case laughing at yourself would be genteel. Laughing at someone else who shows that you're wrong is just clueless.

Any sort of license is an agreement between the licensee and the government. The type of agreement (to obey certain laws in the case of a driver's license, to obey both laws and ethical requirements for a lawyer) does not change the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue - which you either can't understand or wish to ignore - is that the government's regulatory right comes only from the agreement represented by that license. It does not apply otherwise.

Which specifically means that your assertion that it applies to two lesbian high school students is wrong.

THAT is not my belief. THAT is your belief you are trying to impose on me. So you are wrong!

Well, you see, you have a couple of options here.

You assert that the school is "practicing ethics on its own terms." Now, that could be a simple, straightforward observation. But in that case it doesn't much matter. Everyone "practices ethics on their own terms," and sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.

The question here is, "Is what the school doing right?" If all you're saying is "Well, they're doing something," then that's both obvious and irrelevant.

On the other hand, if you're saying "The school is practicing ethics on their own terms, and they're right," or "The school is practicing ethics on their own terms, and that's all that matters," then you're mistaken.

So, irrelevant or wrong. What's your preference?

kis123 · Mar 14, 2010

Master Baiter said:
Lesbians don't have exclusive rights.
They cannot legally marry in almost every state, theirs included.
These particular lesbians are also minors, so they have even fewer rights.
So before you start screaming irrationally about their "rights" consider that.
The school hosted the prom, and they set the rules that all of the other students must abide by.
Why should these two be any different?
Just because a public school is federally funded doesn't change anything.
No one forced them to attend this particular school, and when their parents decided to, they agreed to abide by the rules the school district set forth.

That's the problem I have with all of this.

The lesbians think they're above the rules and "special" because of their sexual orientation.
The school district was well within their rights to do what they did when faced with legal action from the ACLU.
The lesbians in question brought this upon themselves, and must now face the wrath of their classmates, who somehow, did manage follow the rules.
It's just that simple.
No special privileges for anyone ... even lesbians.

No one's asking for special privileges; they are asking for the SAME privileges as their heterosexual counterparts....you know, the same civil rights already covered by law. You know, that pesky no discrimination based on sexual orientation thing. I know that gets in the way of others' homophobic, right wing, so-called Christian sensibilities (another oxymoron IMO), but the law is the law.

If the girls didn't have a legal leg to stand on, the school would've stood firm in its stance and not let the lawsuit chips fall where they may. Instead of attempting to come to some compromise, they trash the entire senior class activity in order not to fall in line with what's fair and just treatment for them.

If you believe those girls are the only two homosexuals in that high school, you'd be deluding yourself. They are just the only two with the guts to stand up to protocol and fight the establishment.

There's a high price to pay for stepping out of that comfort zone and put yourself on blast in public. I'm sure when they started out they never believed that things would end up like this. But now that the ball has started rolling, someone will come after them and get the job done.

Some plant, some water, some harvest the benefits. Meaningful change doesn't happen by sitting in the stands; it happens by sacrifice and comes with pain. History gives many examples of this and hopefully this will be another for the history books someday.

I'm not homosewual but I have friends and family who are. Everyone should be free to love and marry who they choose to regardless of gender. When my gay friends and family tell me "I wish I was straight; my life would be so much easier", it breaks my heart. No one should have to live that way IMO.....ever!

Mephistopheles · Mar 15, 2010

Bohemianne said:
The problem with you is you interpret me in a wrong way. The School does not accept lesbians or may find lesbian practice immoral. Period. What does it have to do with me and my options? It now seems like you keep on shoving what you like me ‘to accept’ right straight to my kidney. I am just discussing things in this thread. I have stated everything I want to say ahead.

They may feel it's immoral, it's their right to feel that way in a free country. It's also perfectly legal for a person to dislike black people. But if you take actions based upon that feeling then you're discriminating and that's illegal.

If this was an interracial couple or 2 black kids going to the prom the whole nation would be in uproar. Apparently quite a few Americans fail to grasp the fact that it does not matter whether they're black, lesbian or martians; it's discriminating those people not because what they have done (for which the justice system was invented) but for who they are, and that's illegal.

Master Baiter · Mar 15, 2010

All of this legal talk coming from a bunch of amateur jailhouse lawyers is laughable.
There is no law that requires any school district to allow homo/lesbo couples the "right" to attend prom as a couple. Sorry. No laws were broken.

This was extremely poor planning on the lesbians part. If they wanted to challenge the school district, they should have had the the foresight to do it before the prom, then maybe something could have been worked out. They chose to bring in the ACLU at the eleventh hour; the district pulled the plug. Cause and effect, kiddies.

The school board made a rule that prom dates must be of the opposite sex. It was a moral judgment call. They felt that same sex dates fell outside their code of morality and made a rule about it, just like they make rules about other moral issues like cheating, harassment, etc.

A few people in this thread are declaring that doing such a thing is wrong, bad, evil, etc. How dare the school board impose their morality on school policy?!

What's so amusingly ironic is that the same people who are pissing and moaning about this are doing the exact same thing that "offends" them so much: trying to force their morality on a group that doesn't want it.

It boils down to a moral decision, not a legal one.

Cy/MiG · Mar 15, 2010

Master Baiter said:
What's so amusingly ironic is that the same people who are pissing and moaning about this are doing the exact same thing that "offends" them so much: trying to force their morality on a group that doesn't want it.

Regardless of my own or others opinions on this subject and whether or not they're 'right', I'd say that the above quote is quite true.

BellaRisa · Mar 15, 2010

Master Baiter said:
All of this legal talk coming from a bunch of amateur jailhouse lawyers is laughable.
There is no law that requires any school district to allow homo/lesbo couples the "right" to attend prom as a couple. Sorry. No laws were broken.

This was extremely poor planning on the lesbians part. If they wanted to challenge the school district, they should have had the the foresight to do it before the prom, then maybe something could have been worked out. They chose to bring in the ACLU at the eleventh hour; the district pulled the plug. Cause and effect, kiddies.

The school board made a rule that prom dates must be of the opposite sex. It was a moral judgment call. They felt that same sex dates fell outside their code of morality and made a rule about it, just like they make rules about other moral issues like cheating, harassment, etc.

A few people in this thread are declaring that doing such a thing is wrong, bad, evil, etc. How dare the school board impose their morality on school policy?!

What's so amusingly ironic is that the same people who are pissing and moaning about this are doing the exact same thing that "offends" them so much: trying to force their morality on a group that doesn't want it.

It boils down to a moral decision, not a legal one.

From the article:

In 2002, a gay student sued his school district in Toronto to allow him to attend a prom with his boyfriend. A judge later forced the district to allow the couple to attend and stopped the district from canceling the prom.

U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said a bill he's introduced in Congress would make it illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian school students. He said at least 10 states have such laws, and his bill is modeled after those.

"This situation with the prom is a perfect example of why we need to protect students from discrimination. In this case it's a prom. It other cases, it's getting beaten up or killed," Polis said.

When you start discriminating over sex, race, etc, the law gets involved.

What's laughable and quite amusing is saying that these girls are trying to force their morality on anyone. Oh, please. To my knowledge they weren't intending to have a Lesbian Recruiting Rally. They just wanted to dance with their peers, as a couple just like their peers, and simply being in the same room with straight kids wouldn't be forcing anything; trying to spin the situation into something it's not is in rather poor form and exposes a weak argument. Furthermore, it is indeed wrong for the public school board to enforce their morality on their students. It's simply not acceptable and it will be stopped eventually. Separation of church and state is vital in such a diverse country and needs to be upheld, even if a few folks stuck in 1952 don't like it.

Little by little this country is going to be for everyone, not just the straight, white and christian, and luckily there are plenty of people prepared to fight for that day.

Redmage · Mar 15, 2010

Master Baiter said:
All of this legal talk coming from a bunch of amateur jailhouse lawyers is laughable.
There is no law that requires any school district to allow homo/lesbo couples the "right" to attend prom as a couple. Sorry. No laws were broken.

Actually there is a law. It's called the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and it specifies that no state (or, by extension, any agency of a state) may deny to any citizen equal treatment under the law. This law is the basis of nearly every civil rights lawsuit.

If the school allows straight kids to choose and register their dates freely, then it must extend the same right to "lesbos." Just as it must allow a white student to select a black date if it allows a black student to do the same.

This was extremely poor planning on the lesbians part. If they wanted to challenge the school district, they should have had the the foresight to do it before the prom, then maybe something could have been worked out.

They did. You did notice that the dance was cancelled, yes? That means that all of this happened before the prom.

They chose to bring in the ACLU at the eleventh hour; the district pulled the plug. Cause and effect, kiddies.

Quite so. They gave the district every opportunity to be reasonable before taking legal action. Unfortunately the district is run by irrational homophobes, who pulled the plug rather than let anyone see two girls dancing together.

The girls did not have the power to cancel anything. Only the district did. The district made the choice between granting equal rights to all and denying rights to everyone, and they chose the second.

Cause: knuckle-dragging bigots. Effect: canceled dance.

The school board made a rule that prom dates must be of the opposite sex. It was a moral judgment call. They felt that same sex dates fell outside their code of morality and made a rule about it, just like they make rules about other moral issues like cheating, harassment, etc.

...interracial dating...Yep, just like that.

What's so amusingly ironic is that the same people who are pissing and moaning about this are doing the exact same thing that "offends" them so much: trying to force their morality on a group that doesn't want it.

Yes indeed. That's what anti-discrimination laws are for. That's because some "morals" are not consistent with a civil society, and because an agency of the government must treat all citizens equally.

venray · Mar 15, 2010

Redmage said:
Actually there is a law. It's called the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and it specifies that no state (or, by extension, any agency of a state) may deny to any citizen equal treatment under the law. This law is the basis of nearly every civil rights lawsuit.

If the school allows straight kids to choose and register their dates freely, then it must extend the same right to "lesbos." Just as it must allow a white student to select a black date if it allows a black student to do the same.

They did. You did notice that the dance was cancelled, yes? That means that all of this happened before the prom.

Quite so. They gave the district every opportunity to be reasonable before taking legal action. Unfortunately the district is run by irrational homophobes, who pulled the plug rather than let anyone see two girls dancing together.

The girls did not have the power to cancel anything. Only the district did. The district made the choice between granting equal rights to all and denying rights to everyone, and they chose the second.

Cause: knuckle-dragging bigots. Effect: canceled dance.

...interracial dating...Yep, just like that.

Yes indeed. That's what anti-discrimination laws are for. That's because some "morals" are not consistent with a civil society, and because an agency of the government must treat all citizens equally.

Have to agree with all of this and what Bella said.....

It is a sorry state we are in when we show no tolerance for those who are different and deny them the rights of freedom we talk about so much in this country...

Race, sexual orientation, religious views, age, and being disabled are no reasons for witholding rights from any citizen....

The federal government ought to withold some serious funding for this school going forward....

Redmage · Mar 15, 2010

Bohemianne said:
Handling proper interpersonal relationship is part of what is embodied in "moral principles" and this is all part of code of conduct a high official must abide.

Once again: "high officials" in the US are not bound by a MORAL code of conduct. Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of lying to Congress. He could not have been impeached at all if he had simply admitted up front to his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. But no matter how many times you say it, this idea that public officials are legally bound by "moral principles" will not magically become true.

Acquiring “driver’s license” is having the license to operate, the other is the privilege to “practice.” Both have ethics of course, but the first doesn’t need to take oath for it. What does it mean? The latter would require different responsibility on dealing with trust of people, which may involve any: money, property, confidence and longer contract periods.

I have just a few questions for you...

1) Is a license, of any sort, an agreement between the licensee and the state, granting the state certain regulatory powers over the licensee in exchange for allowing the licensee to do certain things?

2) Would the government have those powers of regulation over the licensee without the license and the agreement it represents?

3) Is a license required to allow two girls to attend a dance together?

4) If not, then how does the government acquire the right to regulate that interpersonal relationship?

^ This is all fabricated by you. Not me.

Ah. Let's recap...

Asutickler stated, specifically in reference to the Itawamba County School Board's attempt to prevent two lesbians from attending a dance together, that the government had no right to regulate interpersonal affairs. Is that correct?

And you stated, in response to that specific claim, that it was not true. Is that correct?

If both of those statements are correct (and they are; I can point you to both messages), then you stated that the Itawamba County School Board did have such a right.

So, which part did I fabricate?

BellaRisa · Mar 15, 2010

The school board made a rule that prom dates must be of the opposite sex. It was a moral judgment call. They felt that same sex dates fell outside their code of morality and made a rule about it, just like they make rules about other moral issues like cheating, harassment, etc.

And here lies the bones of the issue: attempting to make damaging, offensive behavior like cheating comparable to being gay. Morals will always have a hand in the making of rules, yet we as a people need to get past this unenlightened notion that behavior that is clearly negative and harmful, like harassment, can be lumped in with behavior that simply is and harms no one, like homosexuality. Simply put, allowing these girls to attend the event would have hurt no one. Barring them has hurt a great many, and the fault lies not with these children, but with the adult bigots who made the final decision. Shame on them.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that ironically, when the school board announced they would cancel the Prom they stated the decision was "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events." Had they simply allowed these girls to attend the event in the first place life and education could have gone on as usual, "distraction" free. Instead they dug in their cretin heels and disappointed an entire graduating class, and the entire nation has a spotlight on them and will keep it there until this wrong is made right.

kis123 · Mar 15, 2010

Master Baiter said:
The school board made a rule that prom dates must be of the opposite sex. It was a moral judgment call. They felt that same sex dates fell outside their code of morality and made a rule about it, just like they make rules about other moral issues like cheating, harassment, etc.

A few people in this thread are declaring that doing such a thing is wrong, bad, evil, etc. How dare the school board impose their morality on school policy?!

What's so amusingly ironic is that the same people who are pissing and moaning about this are doing the exact same thing that "offends" them so much: trying to force their morality on a group that doesn't want it.

It boils down to a moral decision, not a legal one.

Not when it violates constitutionally amended and protected civil rights, especially in a pubilcally funded school system.

They did not have the right to do it and get away with it, hence the national public spotlight and this thread full of "jailhouse" lawyers. My 10 year old grandnephew knows right from wrong.....what the hell happened to a school board full of so-called adults that insist on keeping the social norms of decades past? They simply aren't going to get away with it and from what I've been hearing, those "lesbians" are getting quite a bit of support.

But you keep conjuring up nonsense and we'll be here to denounce it as wrong and unconstitutional okay? :jumpupanddown:

kis123 · Mar 15, 2010

Cy/MiG said:
Regardless of my own or others opinions on this subject and whether or not they're 'right', I'd say that the above quote is quite true.

It would be even more true if the issue were simply a moral one. But it is not; it is about a federally protected group being discriminated against. They didn't have a legal leg to stand on so they throw their own entire senior class under the bus!

They don't have to want it, but they do have to obey the law. Instead they were cowards and cancelled the prom instead.......real adult-like behavior huh? :disgust:

Redmage · Mar 15, 2010

It's even becoming international news.

The headline reads "Homophobia in US Schools: Prom Canceled Because of Lesbian Pair." "Prom" doesn't translate directly into German. "Abschlussball" means, roughly, "concluding formal dance," as a prom is the final dance of the school year.

Then we have Great Britain.

"If all those John Hughes movies are to be believed, the senior prom is a highlight of American teenage life. But in a real-life scenario that would have made for a great John Hughes plot, a cowardly school in Mississippi has cancelled its senior prom this year after a female student wanted to bring her girlfriend as her date."

Even people in countries that don't have a Constitution know bigotry when they see it.

You know, when I was growing up in Arkansas we'd sometimes say, "Thank God for Mississippi" - meaning it was good to have a state that would always be between us and the bottom of the 20th century. I see some things haven't changed in 30 years.

Cy/MiG · Mar 16, 2010

kis123 said:
It would be even more true if the issue were simply a moral one. But it is not; it is about a federally protected group being discriminated against. They didn't have a legal leg to stand on so they throw their own entire senior class under the bus!

They don't have to want it, but they do have to obey the law. Instead they were cowards and cancelled the prom instead.......real adult-like behavior huh?

Well, I haven't condoned or condemned the cancelling of the prom.

I was just saying that it is true that everyone seems to 'force their morality' on others and it is ironic.

I was just focusing on the morality aspect and nothing else.

v/r

Redmage · Mar 16, 2010

Well, yes. In a sense, that is the entire purpose of government: to force a certain "morality" (that is, a certain idea about what is appropriate) onto people who may or may not agree.

That morality changes with the times. At one time, it was considered moral to own slaves, and immoral for women to vote, and the laws reflected that morality. Today we see both of those beliefs as morally wrong. We can argue about whether "right and wrong" have changed, or whether they were always wrong and the people who believed otherwise were mistaken. But the bottom line is that modern laws have changed to reflect the morality of a changing time.

That's one factor at work in the Case of the Mississippi Prom: the morality of Fulton, Mississippi is about 10-20 years behind that of most of the rest of the civilized world. Another factor is the growing recognition that any moral position that is derived purely from religious ideas has no place in a secular society - certainly not in the administration of secular government.

There is no secular justification for homophobia. One cannot argue for it in any terms that will be agreeable to someone outside certain conservative camps of the Sinai Religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). If the only real argument for a certain policy is "God wants it this way" then that policy is rightly dead on arrival, and deserves all the ridicule that society heaps on it.

Borg Perfection · Mar 16, 2010

GR violation. Debate the topic not the people. edit by Myriads

Redmage · Mar 16, 2010

Bohemianne said:
YOU are all forgetting yet another important value in living this world.

The word is HEROISM.

Oh, brother. Every other argument you've put forward has failed, so now you're saying these girls weren't self-sacrificing enough?

You are really desperate to find some way to blame the girls for this.

Well, I'll see your bet and raise you. The school district wasn't heroic enough if you ask me. They could have admitted that their policy was medieval. They could have faced the need to change. They could have swallowed their pride and not acted like kids on a grade-school playground: "If you won't play my way then I'll just take my ball and go home!"

In short, the grownups could have shown the kids how you deal with being wrong. Hell's bells, they could have shown you.

goddess_nemesis · Mar 16, 2010

Bohemianne said:
YOU are all forgetting yet another important value in living this world.

The word is HEROISM.

Heroism was not given emphasis. Everyone is dealing with the individual feelings of the lesbians and the harshness of the school.

Time and strategy. The lesbians didn’t make it on time with a right strategy to convince the rigid school.

HEROISM is if they sacrifice for a while by keeping their genders as is, just expressing their BI feelings discreetly - attend the prom like normal girls. They can express their LOVE in private, right? Oh, but they want to broadcast their presence as a “couple” and want to slap the admin for it. Can’t they wait? They can’t.

But they could have plead this: “Please sir, let my classmates have the PROM, we will both sacrifice not to attend for the sake of them all.”

They want to be in the prom, one in tux. I understand the importance of freedom of expression. Being self-less, however, IS HARD TO FIND in this selfish world.

Sacrifice first, then after this, they can file formal complaint on this ground.

That's a question no one can really answer unless someone can ask those two girls how long they have been sacrificing their individual rights before they were forced to finally bring the law into this.

We don't know when they realized that they were lesbians and not straight. We don't know if there were other times where they put their own rights aside for their classmates.

One thing that the school has completely forgotten is that prom is about having fun and being with your friends and classmates before the school year ends. You get to dress up in beautiful gowns and handsome tuxes, but at the end of the night it is all about having fun.

Myriads · Mar 16, 2010

Folks, please stay on topic and avoid the off topic digressions. I don't want to have to carve up the thread or close it.

Myriads

playgirl · Mar 16, 2010

don't forget to see the WIN

What people are missing in this story is that there is a whole lot of WIN:

* for Constance McMillen to challenge the issue shows that she is courageous, confident and expecting to be treated no differently than any other student which demonstrates a lot of maturity and self-esteem

* the father is very supportive and even told her she had to go to school the day after the prom was canceled because she had to face her classmates. "'My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I'm still proud of who I am,' McMillen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview."'

* McMillen, originally afraid to go to school after the prom was canceled, may turn out to be praised by her classmates because of the generosity offered by Sean Cummings to host an alternate prom.

* Sean Cummings gets major points: "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.'"

* a federal law outlawing such ridiculous behavior would be a huge win for the country and all glbt students: "U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said a bill he's introduced in Congress would make it illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian school students. He said at least 10 states have such laws, and his bill is modeled after those. 'This situation with the prom is a perfect example of why we need to protect students from discrimination. In this case it's a prom. It other cases, it's getting beaten up or killed,' Polis said."

* Jared Polis gets bonus points for sponsoring the legislation

there's been enough discussion about discrimination that i'll just say this: yet again, the big losers are the residents of mississippi. the ultimate FAIL prize goes to the school board. by now, everyone in the country knows that mississippi is an ass-backwards state and will ban anything it deems outside it's ultra conservative politics. the end result of their politics will be a brain drain that will only serve to perpetuate their backward ways. those who choose to stay in mississippi and fight the good fight internally are major winners and saints.

venray · Mar 16, 2010

Sean Cummings for the win!

Redmage · Mar 16, 2010

Bohemianne said:
How many times in this thread did you take it as personal attack rather than get through your point of rebuttal? You don't need to answer this.

That's good, since I couldn't think of one.

^ LOL. So Official can cohabit and do "adultery" (crime) all he/she likes, after all he is not bound by moral code of conduct (Ethics) ??????! The government shouldn't question or regulate this...(?) [cough] Ethics just died. Just wow.

Life's hard. But yes, that is the way the law works.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/mundy022298.htm

*sigh* In Washington DC, where the affair with Lewinsky took place, adultery is a misdemeanor. Under American law, that puts it on a par with failing to obey a stop sign. And though this may come as a shock to you, sitting Presidents cannot be impeached for traffic violations.

Whether you like it or not, Bill Clinton was impeached on a charge of perjury. He was not impeached for what he did with Monica Lewinsky. And believe me the Republicans who controlled Congress at that time would have added that to the list if they could have. But legally, they could not.

These things are just facts, and you can fuss all you want but they won't stop being facts just because they make you unhappy. I'm sorry, but nearly everything you've said on this thread has been demonstrably, objectively wrong.

I will drop this topic. It is pointless to discuss it further with you.

Until you say something true, I agree.

^ You fabricated almost everything for me. I only picked up the highlighted sentence on the post and answered on that regard.

If you were not replying to Asutickler's remark in the context in which he wrote it (that is, referring specifically to the school's actions in Fulton, Mississippi), then your reply was pointless and irrelevant. The ability of the government to revoke an attorney's law license has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of two girls to attend a high school dance.

If you were replying to that remark in context, then your claims are factually wrong. Government has no right to regulate interpersonal relations outside certain specific cases (such as licensing and restraining orders).

So we're back to a choice you've faced before on this thread - would you rather be mistaken, or irrelevant?

Angel77 · Mar 16, 2010

playgirl said:
What people are missing in this story is that there is a whole lot of WIN:

* for Constance McMillen to challenge the issue shows that she is courageous, confident and expecting to be treated no differently than any other student which demonstrates a lot of maturity and self-esteem

* the father is very supportive and even told her she had to go to school the day after the prom was canceled because she had to face her classmates. "'My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I'm still proud of who I am,' McMillen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview."'

* McMillen, originally afraid to go to school after the prom was canceled, may turn out to be praised by her classmates because of the generosity offered by Sean Cummings to host an alternate prom.

* Sean Cummings gets major points: "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.'"

* a federal law outlawing such ridiculous behavior would be a huge win for the country and all glbt students: "U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said a bill he's introduced in Congress would make it illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian school students. He said at least 10 states have such laws, and his bill is modeled after those. 'This situation with the prom is a perfect example of why we need to protect students from discrimination. In this case it's a prom. It other cases, it's getting beaten up or killed,' Polis said."

* Jared Polis gets bonus points for sponsoring the legislation

there's been enough discussion about discrimination that i'll just say this: yet again, the big losers are the residents of mississippi. the ultimate FAIL prize goes to the school board. by now, everyone in the country knows that mississippi is an ass-backwards state and will ban anything it deems outside it's ultra conservative politics. the end result of their politics will be a brain drain that will only serve to perpetuate their backward ways. those who choose to stay in mississippi and fight the good fight internally are major winners and saints.

Very awesome points indeed!

love feet · Mar 17, 2010

playgirl said:
What people are missing in this story is that there is a whole lot of WIN:

* for Constance McMillen to challenge the issue shows that she is courageous, confident and expecting to be treated no differently than any other student which demonstrates a lot of maturity and self-esteem

* the father is very supportive and even told her she had to go to school the day after the prom was canceled because she had to face her classmates. "'My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I'm still proud of who I am,' McMillen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview."'

* McMillen, originally afraid to go to school after the prom was canceled, may turn out to be praised by her classmates because of the generosity offered by Sean Cummings to host an alternate prom.

* Sean Cummings gets major points: "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.'"

* a federal law outlawing such ridiculous behavior would be a huge win for the country and all glbt students: "U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said a bill he's introduced in Congress would make it illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian school students. He said at least 10 states have such laws, and his bill is modeled after those. 'This situation with the prom is a perfect example of why we need to protect students from discrimination. In this case it's a prom. It other cases, it's getting beaten up or killed,' Polis said."

* Jared Polis gets bonus points for sponsoring the legislation

there's been enough discussion about discrimination that i'll just say this: yet again, the big losers are the residents of mississippi. the ultimate FAIL prize goes to the school board. by now, everyone in the country knows that mississippi is an ass-backwards state and will ban anything it deems outside it's ultra conservative politics. the end result of their politics will be a brain drain that will only serve to perpetuate their backward ways. those who choose to stay in mississippi and fight the good fight internally are major winners and saints.

i so agree with you! :goodjob:

Angel77 · Mar 17, 2010

love feet said:
i so agree with you!

Me too. And it does make me happy to see that a majority of people are really wanting to support this girl and just support equality, period. :happyhop:

I hate bigotry. So much.

1st Level Black Feather

Level of Lemon Feather

1st Level Yellow Feather

TMF Expert

2nd Level Yellow Feather

Verified

1st Level Black Feather

Verified

1st Level Black Feather

Verified

Level of Lemon Feather

Level of Lemon Feather

1st Level Black Feather

2nd Level Yellow Feather

1st Level Black Feather

TMF Expert

1st Level Black Feather

Verified

Tzar of the TMF

TMF Master

Verified

1st Level Black Feather

Level of Garnet Feather

3rd Level White Feather

Level of Garnet Feather