Miss. school prom off after lesbian's date request

[tech2101]

Well lets see,.....................Gays are the issue in a planned prom in ........"M"ississippi............., so they cancelled it.
(I wonder if they would have cancelled it in ..."M"ichigan...."M"ontana....."M"assachusetts....."M"aine ???


"Nuff said !

joanne

We get it, north good, south bad. Go away now.

 

[joanne]

We get it, north good, south bad. Go away now.

NO 'tech'....seriously. I wonder if those other "M" states would have cancelled the Prom !!!

(I'm not so sure You would have liked the answer(s) ) It a Valid honest question !

I'm respectfully requesting that you act like a ..grown up to a Valid question.

Nothing personal !

joanne

 

[delldude]

Using your logic, an infertile straight couple is in the same boat as a homosexual one...

How you come to that is beyond you.

I suppose an infertile straight couple would be trying to regenerate the species as GOD intended and wouldn't know they were infertile until sometime down the line after they tried repeatedly. Duh.

Jesus Christ, he just had to go and use the G word now, didn't he?

 

[Garfield1966]

JACKSON, Miss. – A northern Mississippi school district will not be hosting a high school prom this spring after a lesbian student sought to attend with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.



I've no issues with what anyone's preferences ae as to how they love or seek out love. I do wonder where, if anyplace, any "line" should be drawn. Case in point here = the tuxedo. Would it have been acceptable for all the male students to show up in dress gowns?

They would have a hard tome trying to enforce that. Look how many women wear pant suits to work. We still live in a male dominated work environment even though women make up 52% (I think) of the population. The only clothing that the school could enforce is a uniform that l students need to wear or a broad rule such as 'business casual ' or something like that.

Also, our society accepts women wearing pants of all types. The same is not true for men. Whether or not a rule could be enforced for that I do not know. I would guess not. If a guy wants to come in 'drag' I do not see how that could be prevented. Wold be interesting to see. How do you tell Rue Paul that he cannot come dressed as a woman?

 

[Garfield1966]

How you come to that is beyond you.

I suppose an infertile straight couple would be trying to regenerate the species as GOD intended and wouldn't know they were infertile until sometime down the line after they tried repeatedly. Duh.

Jesus Christ, he just had to go and use the G word now, didn't he?

How do my wife and I fit into your plan? We never had any intent to pro-create. The way your post #5 is written, that does not work. Either we have kids or it's not a legitimate union according to your guidelines, our relationship falls into the same category as a gay relationship.

You also have not addressed my question about sex with out intent of procreation.

 

[delldude]

How do my wife and I fit into your plan? We never had any intent to pro-create. The way your post #5 is written, that does not work. Either we have kids or it's not a legitimate union according to your guidelines, our relationship falls into the same category as a gay relationship.

You also have not addressed my question about sex with out intent of procreation.

But alas you married in some form of ceremony I bet. Don't tell me you went before a Preacher.....

You do possess the required adaptive equipment for procreation I assume. You are man and woman.....part of the grand plan.

My buddy had sex without the intent of procreation.....Zachary is about 21 now.

 

[Garfield1966]

But alas you married in some form of ceremony I bet. Don't tell me you went before a Preacher.....

You do possess the required adaptive equipment for procreation I assume. You are man and woman.....part of the grand plan.

My buddy had sex without the intent of procreation.....Zachary is about 21 now.

JP did the official stuff but a family preacher that my wife's family s know for decades said some sort of prayer.

Whether the pluming is there or not is not the point. Most religions want procreation to keep the herd at a constant if not expanding number. The fact that my wife and I chose not to have children makes us no different than a gay couple. Both relationships are not going to generate a child.

If marriage is based on producing children than all partners need to be tested for fertility and only those who produce can be married. If child production is irrelevant, then who gets married is irrelevant to the conversation.

No one is getting married at the prom. This is merely about two people who care for each other going to the prom together. There is nothing illegal about what they are doing. The fact that some people do not agree with it is not relevant to US law. The 14th guarantees that. I hope the courts step in quickly and force the school to go through with the prom. It would be a shame for th children to have to pay for the ignorance and bigotry of the parents.

 

[delldude]

So you think in an area dominated by Southern Baptists and still wallowing in left over crap from days bygone (Tech no pun intended) a pubescent lesbian couple doesn't conjure up all kinds of perverted bad Ju Ju in the minds of those God fearing Parishioners?

Just think of the chance that the entire prom would turn into a massive homosexual orgy.

Show may go on..privately

The Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition says it is leading efforts to organize a prom for all students and a hotel owner in New Orleans has offered to hold an alternate senior prom. He says he'll provide transportation and hotel accommodations.

I wasn't aware there was a Constitutional right to a prom.

The right to a memorable prom night shall not be infringed

 

[EastUS]

Also, our society accepts women wearing pants of all types. The same is not true for men.

Would you consider the pants to be proper for a formal prom? No matter....Arrgh!...it's ALL unfair, ridiculous and just blatantly discriminatory!! Gads!...We must seek out social remedies immediately! Personally...I was considering showing up at the airport in dress kilt, swim fins and painted blue from top to toe...as a tribute to my scottish-aquatic-druid heritage and beliefs. Should there be ANY reasonable restrictions on my freedom of personal expression?...Perhaps yes?..Then why not at a school?

 

[Garfield1966]

Dell,

I think it is obvious that the bigotry of the people in the area (religiously based or not) is where the policy of discrimination originated. What they believe will happen is of little concern. They can believe the world will blow up for all I care. I have no interest in their irrational fears.

The fact that a private enterprise will take care of a prom for a public school is a little concerning. If something goes wrong who is liable? Will the private entity be allowed to discriminate? What happens with the public funding allocated to the prom? Should the school be allowed to shirk it's responsibility due to their prejudice?

Yes the COTUS does entitle them to the prom. It's called the 14th amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How does this not apply? Gays must be treated the same as all others by law.

East,
If formal attire is required then pants are not acceptable but that is not what I wrote. What I wrote was that it is acceptable for women to wear pants in to days society, and since tuxedos have pants, it would be hard to argue that women cannot wear a tux.

Reasonable is relative. What you define as reasonable I may find overly restrictive. I believe any restrictions should be based on whether or not the action will cause any harm (mental anguish does not count) to others or property. Kilt, no problem. Fins could cause a safety hazard if you are trying to evacuate a plane. Pant, as long as it does not rub off on the seats or others why not.

A gay couple does not harm anyone. They are not infringing on anyones rights. They pay taxes (or at least their guardians do) so they are entitled to the same rights as the other students. Prejudice should never be the bases for law. Aside from that, the pledge states very clearly "freedom and justice for all", not some people, not just the people we like, not just the people we agree with but ALL people. Or is the pledge just a bunch of words people like to say to make them feel better?

 

[delldude]

How does this not apply? Gays must be treated the same as all others by law.

Maybe so Gar but as I previously said before.....its a question that hasn't been answered 'officially' by the Supremes.

Black's were 'equal' under the same statute since September 17, 1787...how'd that pan out?

 

[Garfield1966]

Not sure what COTUS you were looking at but the original COTUS signed in 1787 stated the following:

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Here is a good site on the issue. 3/5 clause

Not until the 13th amendment was passed were blacks free of slavery and then only in 1964 with the Civil rights act were minorities truly equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[delldude]

Not sure what COTUS you were looking at but the original COTUS signed in 1787 stated the following:


Here is a good site on the issue. 3/5 clause

Not until the 13th amendment was passed were blacks free of slavery and then only in 1964 with the Civil rights act were minorities truly equal in the eyes of the law.

You got me Pal......I should have got my coffee first.

So make it July 9, 1868 then....forget 1964 they were covered in 1868.....that didn't pan out to well either.

 

[Garfield1966]

You need some more coffee.

1868 just abolished slavery. Not until 1964 with the civil rights amendment was discrimination legally abolished.

 

[delldude]

You need some more coffee.

1868 just abolished slavery. Not until 1964 with the civil rights amendment was discrimination legally abolished.

Ok but Blacks were covered then under the equal protection clause just as Gays were then too for that matter.

The difference is that until a person or group feels they have been discriminated 'against COTUS' and pursues legal action it goes on until a ruling is given.

I guess you could then say Blacks were discriminated from 1868 until 1964 and Gays have been discriminated since 1868.