It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mississippi School District Cancels Prom Amid Lesbian Date Controversy

page: 39
19
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That is SO cool! I hope there are many more to come.

These kids are so brave.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Annee
 


That is SO cool! I hope there are many more to come.

These kids are so brave.


Yes, they can committ sodomy like no other and be so proud of it.
You know I'm right about the private prom, though. The judge has no standing to try and enforce a ruling on a private assembly.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Annee
 


That is SO cool! I hope there are many more to come.

These kids are so brave.


Yes, they can committ sodomy like no other and be so proud of it.
You know I'm right about the private prom, though. The judge has no standing to try and enforce a ruling on a private assembly.


Why do you keep pushing the prom? I think its pretty obvious most of us did not think a prom should be forced.

Your prejudices and fears are your problem. Thankfully acceptance of people and their rights is increasing every generation.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Annee
 


That is SO cool! I hope there are many more to come.

These kids are so brave.


Yes, they can committ sodomy like no other and be so proud of it.
You know I'm right about the private prom, though. The judge has no standing to try and enforce a ruling on a private assembly.


Why do you keep pushing the prom? I think its pretty obvious most of us did not think a prom should be forced.

Your prejudices and fears are your problem. Thankfully acceptance of people and their rights is increasing every generation.


I'm talking about the privately funded prom put on by the parents in response to the school canceling their prom. I knew the judge wouldn't force the school to hold a prom. But the judge can't force the parents holding a private prom to not be discriminatory. Private funds, private property, private rules. The judge overstepped his authority when he told the parents that they had to include little Ms. lesbian to the private prom. But I think the parents know that, already.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37


I'm talking about the privately funded prom put on by the parents in response to the school canceling their prom. I knew the judge wouldn't force the school to hold a prom. But the judge can't force the parents holding a private prom to not be discriminatory. Private funds, private property, private rules. The judge overstepped his authority when he told the parents that they had to include little Ms. lesbian to the private prom. But I think the parents know that, already.


First off her name is Constance - not little Ms. lesbian.

I am not law educated. Plus laws are different in different states. And there is also interpretation of law.

The judge declares for equality Constance has to be invited to the private prom. So this is a judges order. In order to override it or dismiss it - - I would think there'd have to be more court dates. Time wise - the private prom might have to be canceled - - then rescheduled again after more court dates to dismiss the judges ruling.

I'd say this judge knew exactly what he did. Good for him.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Annee
 


That is SO cool! I hope there are many more to come.

These kids are so brave.


Yes, they can committ sodomy like no other and be so proud of it.
You know I'm right about the private prom, though. The judge has no standing to try and enforce a ruling on a private assembly.


Why do you keep pushing the prom? I think its pretty obvious most of us did not think a prom should be forced.

Your prejudices and fears are your problem. Thankfully acceptance of people and their rights is increasing every generation.


I'm talking about the privately funded prom put on by the parents in response to the school canceling their prom. I knew the judge wouldn't force the school to hold a prom. But the judge can't force the parents holding a private prom to not be discriminatory. Private funds, private property, private rules. The judge overstepped his authority when he told the parents that they had to include little Ms. lesbian to the private prom. But I think the parents know that, already.


Were I agree they should not have mandated any private parents to admit her into a private function - I do marvel at the fact you take her private sexual matters so personally. You yourself have been a sounding board for the DON'T THREAD ON ME
ideology to some degree, yet here in this case you have effectively abandoned it.

My point is how is it any of your concern where someone put their junk??? They aren't doing it in the room with you and if you believe in god he is plenty mighty to do a good job judging.

So I don't get your hang, can you redistill it here please?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


It's a matter that, like BH and Annee, I resonate with. Except I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum.

When there has been a genuine wrongdoing in history like not allowing people to vote because of skin color, then I'm all for changing the laws. But with gays, I truly don't buy into their whiney boo-hoo "we're oppressed" crap that they want everyone to buy into. Do they still have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with the way things are now? The answer is YES. No one keeps a gay man from voting, serving in the military, getting an education, buying a home, etc.

They're complaining because they want traditionally religious areas to change and suddenly become more tolerant to allow their wretched and evil lifestyle to be "okay". The religious law that was good enough in that area for hundreds of years is suddenly not good enough because they say it's not good enough.

This is my assertion that gay marriage, gay rights are a states rights issue. Traditionally religious areas of the U.S. shouldn't be cast as backward people simply because a population of more tolerant people from larger cities say so. That's doing exactly the same thing to the religious communities that pro-gay rights people claim is being done to the gay rights community right now.

The answer is simple - since the two lifestyles are not compatible - don't expect them to be compatible and don't force them to live amongst one another. This is how you end up with violence.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
The judge overstepped his authority when he told the parents that they had to include little Ms. lesbian to the private prom.


I linked to the judge's opinion and included an excerpt for you to read. I don't know what more I can do to help you understand. I can't read it TO you. The judge did not and can not rule or mandate anything about the private prom. I used the wrong word. But the thing is right there for you to read. He basically said that the court KNEW NOTHING about the private prom, but the Defendants had assured him that ALL students, including Constance, are invited and encouraged to attend the private prom. He did not overstep his authority or do anything wrong, as you are trying to assert.

Secondly, Some people extol the virtues of the First Amendment and stand behind it in supposed solidarity... that is, when they agree with the expression being protected. But it's clear to me that you support the First Amendment's freedoms only for those with whom you agree. That's no freedom at all. Unless you can stand up for the free speech and free expressions of those with whom you disagree, you can't say that you support the First Amendment.


Originally posted by sos37
But I guarantee you the SC won't hear this trial. They haven't heard any such like trials in the past because they know it's a states rights issue, as well it should be.


Again, you are wrong. The SC has heard many similar cases. You really should have read the judge's opinion. He didn't base his opinion on thin air.



The United States Supreme Court has "recognized that the 'vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. '" Gay Students Org. of Univ. of NH v. Bonner.
...
The United States Supreme Court has also held that "states and their agencies, such as the Defendant, cannot set-out homosexuals for special treatment, neither inclusive or [sic] exclusive." Collins v. Scottsboro City Bd. of Educ.
...
The United States Supreme Court held that students may wear color patterns or styles with the intent to express a particular matter unless school officials can demonstrate the expression would "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of the other students. Tinker


I hope that clear up the Supreme Court issue.


Originally posted by sos37
Traditionally religious areas of the U.S. shouldn't be cast as backward people simply because a population of more tolerant people from larger cities say so.


It's not that certain areas are being cast as backwards. It's certain PEOPLE. By the way, I was born and raised on a farm outside a very small town. And now? I live on a farm outside a very small town. It's not that people from larger cities are tolerant. It's that our founding documents guarantee equal protection under the law to ALL people. If you REALLY believed in the tenets of our founding documents, that would be clear to you. You just have a personal issue about homosexuality, which you have expanded on earlier in the thread.



The answer is simple - since the two lifestyles are not compatible - don't expect them to be compatible and don't force them to live amongst one another. This is how you end up with violence.


The two lifestyles are most definitely compatible! It's the homophobic individuals who are trying to push this idea that they aren't and it's the homophobic individuals who result to violence when they don't get their way. You don't see gay people killing straight people because they're straight. If someone can't live in a modern society and curb their violent tendencies, then it is THEY who should be sequestered, not the gays.


[edit on 3/24/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Thanks BH for providing this thread with accurate information.

Thanks for clearing up how the judge included Constance in "all students" with his wording.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Here's the latest from a CNN article - a quote from the ACLU attorney:

CNN


"We're in a conservative area of the country, where people tend to think we can do what we like," said Sun, who lives in New York but has traveled multiple times to Mississippi for this legal push. "This case sends a strong message that that's not going to fly anymore."

The only pending issue, Sun said, is the question of damages and the ACLU's request for attorneys' fees. An amended complaint to seek a quick resolution on this should be filed in the next 30 days, she said.


Notice how the NY ACLU attorney says "we" - like she's from Mississippi.


It is as I posted earlier, a case of the ACLU using this poor woman as a pawn to further their own agenda. They blow into town from New York, upset this woman's life and just about everyone else's, file for attorney fees, and then leave as quickly as they showed up.

While the ACLU is counting their money and no doubt giving themselves high fives, nothing has really been resolved in Mississippi for the woman and everyone else affected. Perhaps the woman can take some of the sympathy money that's been showered on her and use it to move to a place where she would feel more welcome.

Lesson to other gays still in Mississippi? STFU or move unless you want your life messed up and you like being a pawn and/or publicity whore.

Now that's real progress - courtesy of the ACLU.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Well she's really won nothing. School districts now know they can cancel the prom to work around the issue of having gay/lesbian lifestyles forced on their districts.

And here's something else: That private prom the parents organized? Constance isn't invited after all.


www.topix.net...

www.clarionledger.com...



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Well she's really won nothing.


Not true. She has a scholarship, a job offer, the opportunity to sue for her first amendment rights and the knowledge that she took a huge step for gay rights everywhere. Oh, and another prom.




School districts now know they can cancel the prom to work around the issue of having gay/lesbian lifestyles forced on their districts.


They've always had that ability. They can cancel their prom, but they might get sued.




And here's something else: That private prom the parents organized? Constance isn't invited after all.


www.topix.net...

www.clarionledger.com...


Your sources are old. She HAS been invited and apparently she's going.




According to yesterday's ACLU press release, an alternative "private" prom event is in the works, to be organized by select parents of her Itawamba Agricultural High School classmates, and open to all students, regardless of sexual orientation.

"All I ever wanted," Constance McMillen states in the press release, "Was for my school to treat me and my girlfriend like any other couple that wants to go to prom. Now we can all get back to things like picking out prom night outfits and thinking about corsages."
...
McMillen, self-identified as a lesbian since the eighth grade, does intend to attend the parents' new and "private" prom, and has shared with the press that she's been looking forward to the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition's Second Chance Prom (MSSC Prom), which is being held on May 8 in Tupelo.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Gee - I didn't know the ACLU only "lived" in New York.

Weird that they also found their way to SW Arizona - - to ensure after 3 years of rejections that a Gay/Straight alliance was established in the local high school.

I've always kind of been under the impression that "American Civil Liberties" - - meant everyone -- everywhere.

Some posts really make you want to say: "What the . . . "



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The prom was scheduled for April 2. It hasn't happened yet. The girl was told that if she arrived separately from her date and didn't wear a tux, they could attend the prom. Sort of like trying to fool people into thinking that they weren't gay. Kind of like a kid covering his eyes in the movie theater, thinking that would make the gay monster go away. BUT, she was told, if any of the other kids became "uncomfortable" (I'm assuming if they danced together or seemed to be a couple, and someone complained), both girls would be kicked out. Because of OTHERS' discomfort.

...so they were capable of attending the prom is what you're saying?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
..so they were capable of attending the prom is what you're saying?


Yes, they were capable, meaning physically able.

Additionally, if they pretended to be straight and Constance wore what straight girls wore, they would have been allowed to attend the prom.

Does that answer your question to me?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
So in other words, the ACLU furthered it's agenda, pocketed some bucks, screwed the school district, helped the girl get payed, and set up a possibility of more money for her in the near future......it's all about the money, has been from day one. The ACLU does not fight for everyones rights, opnly those special few they deem worthy...seems the more screwed up you are the more willing they are to take your case. There was a time and a place for them at one point, now they are just professional extortionists.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by adifferentbreed]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
The ACLU does not fight for everyones rights, opnly those special few they deem worthy...seems the more screwed up you are the more willing they are to take your case.


Could that also be expressed as 'the more jammed up you are and unable to fight for your rights in a legal setting, the more they are willing to help'?

Sorry to pipe up once more...this crap would be illegal in this jurisdiction, and the government would fight your fight in this province through the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Mind you, that august body still raises some hackles up here from time to time.

Still, it remains hard to believe that something that we take for granted is still so hotly debated down south. I guess that long winter just chills us out.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I'd have to disagree with the more jammed up analogy. If you investigate some of the truely vile people and things they defend and have defended in the past, and no I'm not calling homosexuals either of those terms, maybe you'd rethink it a little bit. Anymore, in my opinion they are highly paid professional extortionists.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Gee - I didn't know the ACLU only "lived" in New York.


Who said they were only from NY? In this case the ACLU spokesperson was but pretended to be from MS for purposes of the interview by saying "we" all the time.


Weird that they also found their way to SW Arizona - - to ensure after 3 years of rejections that a Gay/Straight alliance was established in the local high school.

I've always kind of been under the impression that "American Civil Liberties" - - meant everyone -- everywhere.


No, the ACLU pretty much has a liberal, political correctness agenda - which is not shared by everyone everywhere. Not even by a majority of Americans, which I'm sure you're shocked to learn. The ACLU name is a "smokescreen" to make people think they're for everyone's rights. Hey, it worked on you ...


Some posts really make you want to say: "What the . . . "


All the time, all the time ...




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I must admit - I did not always "get" the ACLU.

It took maturity for me to understand their importance and what they do.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join