Encryptshun wrote:Better headline would have been:
"ACLU puts finger in legal dike, $35 grand awarded lickety-split."
Encryptshun wrote:Better headline would have been:
"ACLU puts finger in legal dike, $35 grand awarded lickety-split."
I can see it now: Defendant walks in, sits down. Plaintiff walks in, sits down. All rise, all sit down, Court is now in session, blah blah blah - Wait. I thought this case involved discrimination against a Black guy? Case dismissed.Bubba1 wrote:For no other reason besides the color of his skin? Sure, but we are talking about Ryan, so there's probably another reason....ADDirishboy wrote:So then Ryan is entitled to $35k for being kicked out of Bob Evans?
I'd imagine some of the worst lawyers would have no problem getting that amount. The case spoke for itself quite a bit.ADDirishboy wrote:$35k? She must have had a damn good lawyer. That is effing ridiculous.
That's just it. Its likely few students would have cared if she arrived with her female date while dressed in a tux. But those students did care when the prom was cancelled and the finger pointed at her. I'd imagine she lost a lot of "friends". My understanding is she ultimately ended up finshing high school elsewhere.ADDirishboy wrote:It was stupid though to cancel prom just to keep a lesbian couple from attending. Who cares?
How about her first amendment rights? How about her civil rights? The case was much bigger than the prom itself (of course many teens would probably see the prom as more important at that point in their lives).ADDirishboy wrote:Also, the article states that the school was violating her "rights". Rights to what? Right to attend prom? Give me a f**king break.
C-Kwik wrote:
Frankly, I think the case could have been worth much more.
There was no first amendment right violated. The right to peaceable assembly is protection from government intrusion of private assembly. It is not a guarantee to government-sponsored assembly. A privately-sponsored prom was held by parents to exclude the gay girl and her date. The problem is that the school then canceled the official prom, leaving the lesbians without a school prom to attend. If the two lesbians showed up to the school prom alone, it would be sad, but not a violation of the school's own non-discrimination policy.C-Kwik wrote: How about her first amendment rights? How about her civil rights? The case was much bigger than the prom itself (of course many teens would probably see the prom as more important at that point in their lives).
Frankly, I think the case could have been worth much more.
because it's amusing.RCA wrote:Why should being a homosexual be looked down upon?
Damnit, I was just about to say IB4Titanumbnuts240 wrote:because it's amusing.RCA wrote:Why should being a homosexual be looked down upon?
I think RCA raises a good point.....(pun intended). I've wondered why people have such a problem with gays. Are they that much of a personal threat? Are they afraid of turning gay if they stand too close to one?ProudNissanFreak wrote:[Why should being a homosexual be looked down upon?
They're not?!?numbnuts240 wrote: imagine how much time and money would be spent trying to figure out why, and consequently how to fix the problem, all the world's pandas suddenly turned gay.
I think your people are doing a fine job of procreating in their place.numbnuts240 wrote:they're hindering the progression of the human race.
we do f*** like rabbits, huhAZhitman wrote:I think your people are doing a fine job of procreating in their place.
Think about the children!! hahaBubba1 wrote:I think RCA raises a good point.....(pun intended). I've wondered why people have such a problem with gays. Are they that much of a personal threat? Are they afraid of turning gay if they stand too close to one?
Exactly how are they hindering the progression of the human race? If anything, they enhance it. For example, more gay guys means there are more women available for straight guys to pursue giving losers like Nala hope for getting laid.numbnuts240 wrote:i look down upon them because it's not natural. they're hindering the progression of the human race. imagine how much time and money would be spent trying to figure out why, and consequently how to fix the problem, all the world's pandas suddenly turned gay.
tis be true.numbnuts240 wrote:we do f*** like rabbits, huhAZhitman wrote:I think your people are doing a fine job of procreating in their place.
In that case, she should have been fined $35,000.Bubba1 wrote:...for straight guys to pursue giving losers like Nala hope for getting laid.
AZhitman wrote:In that case, she should have been fined $35,000.Bubba1 wrote:...for straight guys to pursue giving losers like Nala hope for getting laid.
maybe "progression" wasn't the right word. should have gone with "survival" or something similar. and nala will never get laid, especially if he's planning on attending the univ. of hartford.Bubba1 wrote:Exactly how are they hindering the progression of the human race? If anything, they enhance it. For example, more gay guys means there are more women available for straight guys to pursue giving losers like Nala hope for getting laid.numbnuts240 wrote:i look down upon them because it's not natural. they're hindering the progression of the human race. imagine how much time and money would be spent trying to figure out why, and consequently how to fix the problem, all the world's pandas suddenly turned gay.
Civil rights in general. How is denying someone entry to an event such as a prom based on race/gender/orientation any different than denying them a seat on a bus or in a restaurant for the same reasons? It was put forth as a public event, "open to all within a category, with an exclusionary rule that singled out a specific group of people. If this was a private event, with invitations sent out privately, and not run by the school, it would be a different story. The cancellation was a direct response to their rule being shot down, so it was just an end-run around it to reach the same goal. It would be like a restaurant chain saying "fine, if we can't tell gays not to eat at our restaurants, we'll just close all our restaurants in <insert town that made them do it here>"ADDirishboy wrote:I'm know it's not illegal, I'm not debating that. What I'm trying to figure out is how attending prom is a "right".
True about Nala. But physically speaking, gays can reproduce just as easily as heterosexuals. And gay parents do not automatically spawn gay children. The only thing you might argue is that many gay people do not find the opposite sex appealing enough to pursue having sex with them, which reduces unplanned pregnancies (but then again Nala is straight and does not appeal to anyone of the opposite sex either).numbnuts240 wrote:[
maybe "progression" wasn't the right word. should have gone with "survival" or something similar. and nala will never get laid, especially if he's planning on attending the univ. of hartford.

I think in my mind I'm looking at it that going to prom isn't a right.Alfador wrote:
Civil rights in general. How is denying someone entry to an event such as a prom based on race/gender/orientation any different than denying them a seat on a bus or in a restaurant for the same reasons? It was put forth as a public event, "open to all within a category, with an exclusionary rule that singled out a specific group of people. If this was a private event, with invitations sent out privately, and not run by the school, it would be a different story. The cancellation was a direct response to their rule being shot down, so it was just an end-run around it to reach the same goal. It would be like a restaurant chain saying "fine, if we can't tell gays not to eat at our restaurants, we'll just close all our restaurants in <insert town that made them do it here>"
Yeah me to, but what do I know.infiniti_lineup wrote:I guess I've been watching Law & Order too much because $35k seems small to me
I agree with this. My aunt is lesbian and her and her partner have a child. They did it through on of those semen donation things. Also, I have a half-uncle who is gay and he and his partner have 2 kids. None of the children are gay and live completely normal lives.Bubba1 wrote:
True about Nala. But physically speaking, gays can reproduce just as easily as heterosexuals. And gay parents do not automatically spawn gay children. The only thing you might argue is that many gay people do not find the opposite sex appealing enough to pursue having sex with them, which reduces unplanned pregnancies (but then again Nala is straight and does not appeal to anyone of the opposite sex either).
imagine having two dads and walking in on them doing the dirty. hawt.troskinatior wrote:Imagine how much that would suck to have gay parents, that would be hell
scotttak wrote:imagine having two dads and walking in on them doing the dirty. hawt.troskinatior wrote:Imagine how much that would suck to have gay parents, that would be hell