Lesbian gets $35K settlement over canceled prom

[nissangirl74]

Imagine how much that would suck to have parents who fight all the time or a dad that beat your mom; that would be hell

FTFY

[MinisterofDOOM]

Are they afraid of turning gay if they stand too close to one?

For many people, I think that's exactly it. Insecurity at its finest.

But, there's another side to it, too. Gays, like all groups/minorities/majorities, become a problem when they impose their personal "uniqueness" on others. That holds true for anyone. Religion, treehuggers, California...everyone. I don't care if you're gay. I DO care if you spend every minute of your existence trying to remind me of it and that it makes you special, but that you don't want to be treated special because you're a human, too. "Always remember: I'm different. But don't act like it." Hypocrisy at its best.
That imposition is unacceptable EITHER WAY. But the real kicker is people who impose their personal preferences on others (religion, sexual preference, politics, environmental views, ANYTHING) and then act offended when that imposition elicits a negative reaction. That's not acceptable, and is simply ***hole behavior.

IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO VALIDATE YOUR LIFESTYLE. Despite what the effing hippies want you to think, everyone doesn't have to love everyone. If you can't accept that, I suggest you find a tall cliff and introduce yourself to Mister Ground--sexual preference notwithstanding.

Psychologically, however, I honestly believe it has very little to do with sexual preference, religion, gothness, emoness, or anything like that. Instead, it's the result of a particular type of mindset. Those people would make SOMETHING an issue even if they weren't gay, or goth, or emo, or Tleilaxu. They feel entitled to special treatment, and latch onto their most distinctive "unique" attribute as a lever for that. Doesn't matter what that attribute is, they'll use it in that same way. It's not a problem with homosexuality. It's a problem with ***holes. And it just so happens that some ***holes happen to be gay. Or goths. Or emos. Or treehuggers.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the prom story, since that was an entirely different kind of issue.

In the end, I try to remember what Strong Bad said: Everyone is different. No two people are not on fire.

[AZhitman]

^ THIS ^

Be gay all you want. I'll even go so far as to support most of your agenda. Just don't expect me to react the way you might want me to, when you're expecting validation or applause or an argument or whatever-the-hell-it-is you want me to do.

I've said this 100 times, if not more: If the FIRST thing I learn about you is that you're Catholic, or gay, or Jewish, or handicapped, or Black, or an Atheist, or a veteran, or ANYTHING ELSE, then you have a problem, not me.

And that problem is, you have decided that you wish to be identified as a TRAIT, not a human being. How about letting me get to know your personality before you throw your lesbianism or your Muslim or your abused childhood ALL UP IN MY FACE?

I don't have an issue with any of those things - we're all different. I don't HATE any of those groups. I DO hate it when people decide that any of those things are WHO THEY ARE.

[Razi]

Well said MoD.

Personally, I don't give a hoot if someone's gay or not, but it's fcuking annoying to be near someone that make a big deal out of their, or someone else's h0m0ness.

[Jesda]

I agree with the three posts above mine.

I might agree with the posts below. We'll see.

[Razi]

You find this pimpin:

[Encryptshun]

Did someone cancel a prom now because Stephen Hawking was going to bring his science?

[Alfador]

I think in my mind I'm looking at it that going to prom isn't a right.

It's still ridiculous that this even happened though.

Well that's where it's tricky. You could also look at it and say that being allowed to shop at Wal-Mart isn't a right either. It's a privilege. The right is being held to the same standard of access to that privilege as everyone else, without being discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc.

[IBCoupe]

I think in my mind I'm looking at it that going to prom isn't a right.

It's still ridiculous that this even happened though.

I think it's not so much that going to prom, in and of itself, is a right. What's a right is receiving equal treatment from the school, free from discrimination against protected classes.

The school did its best to circumvent this by saying, "We're giving them equal access - no prom for anybody!" Of course, that's going to be as transparent to a jury (or a judge, if the only disputed issue was whether or not that act constituted a violation of the law) as it is to the rest of us. So the school decided to pay less, and go with a settlement. No big surprise.

[RCA]

Are they afraid of turning gay if they stand too close to one?

For many people, I think that's exactly it. Insecurity at its finest....

Well said as usual...

Also, you write like David Foster Wallace.

[Watermelonwarrior]

Be gay all you want. I'll even go so far as to support most of your agenda. Just don't expect me to react the way you might want me to, when you're expecting validation or applause or an argument or whatever-the-hell-it-is you want me to do.

I've said this 100 times, if not more: If the FIRST thing I learn about you is that you're Catholic, or gay, or Jewish, or handicapped, or Black, or an Atheist, or a veteran, or ANYTHING ELSE, then you have a problem, not me.

And that problem is, you have decided that you wish to be identified as a TRAIT, not a human being. How about letting me get to know your personality before you throw your lesbianism or your Muslim or your abused childhood ALL UP IN MY FACE?

I don't have an issue with any of those things - we're all different. I don't HATE any of those groups. I DO hate it when people decide that any of those things are WHO THEY ARE.

Well said. Agree 100%.

[ADDirishboy]

If the FIRST thing I learn about you is that you're... Black... then you have a problem, not me.

You need some glasses old man. You should already know someone is black BEFORE they tell you. Ryan doesn't count.

[AZhitman]

If the FIRST thing I learn about you is that you're... Black... then you have a problem, not me.

You need some glasses old man. You should already know someone is black BEFORE they tell you. Ryan doesn't count.

That's PROFILIN', YO!!!

Sometimes, on occasion, every once in a while, here and there, I *might* have occasion to first encounter someone on the phone, or online.

Bending over to shave your legs may have caused an aneurism. Cut it out.

[PoorManQ45]

I think in my mind I'm looking at it that going to prom isn't a right.

It's still ridiculous that this even happened though.

Well that's where it's tricky. You could also look at it and say that being allowed to shop at Wal-Mart isn't a right either. It's a privilege. The right is being held to the same standard of access to that privilege as everyone else, without being discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc.

I never understood why a private organization can't deny service to a specific group of people.

[ADDirishboy]

Sometimes, on occasion, every once in a while, here and there, I *might* have occasion to first encounter someone on the phone, or online.

I don't believe it.

[93coupe]

If the FIRST thing I learn about you is that you're... Black... then you have a problem, not me.

You need some glasses old man. You should already know someone is black BEFORE they tell you. Ryan doesn't count.

What? I count my weed money every day.

[AZhitman]

That's because you're Black.

[ADDirishboy]

What? I count my weed money every day.

WHile smoking a Black and Mild? Didn't think so.

[93coupe]

What? I count my weed money every day.

WHile smoking a Black and Mild? Didn't think so.

How am I supposed to smoke a Black and Mild when I'm drinking a King Cobra 40oz?

[ADDirishboy]

How am I supposed to smoke a Black and Mild when I'm drinking a King Cobra 40oz?

You're the one that's "black", why don't you tell me? Isn't that supposed to be instinctual for you people?

[93coupe]

You're the one that's "black", why don't you tell me? Isn't that supposed to be instinctual for you people?

We bathe regularly, thank you!

[ADDirishboy]

LIES!

[93coupe]

Scratching my butt with my greasy chicken fingers doesn't count?

[ADDirishboy]

Only if you make it rain at the same time.

[Jesda]

How am I supposed to smoke a Black and Mild when I'm drinking a King Cobra 40oz?

You're the one that's "black", why don't you tell me? Isn't that supposed to be instinctual for you people?

[C-Kwik]

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.

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.

Basically, you can hold your own private prom and exclude whomever you want, but if you're a government-run entity, such as a public school, you cannot cancel the prom because a couple lesbians might show up.

The school wisely chose to pay up for being a bunch of (ironic insult coming) faggots.

Perhaps, but it would appear the judge who provided an intial ruling disagrees with you:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images ... pinion.pdf

While this opinion ultimately ended in nothing because there was a privately sponsored prom already reinstated to take the place of the old prom where all students would be invited, few people showed as there was a "real" prom elsewhere to which she was not invited. Can't say what legal precedence pressured the school to settle the case here specifically, I'd imagine their decisions ultimately led to what occurred. While a privately held party is out of the school's control, the judge seems to have been under the impression that the second prom would be held and offer invitations to her in good faith. That didn't happen and the school set those events in motion with their original tort.

[Jesda]

You're talking about an entirely different part of the first amendment. Homosexuality is typically genetic, an innate trait in a human being. The tuxedo was not the core issue -- it was the "lesbianness" of the student and her date. The judge was wrong -- this case has little or nothing to do with the right to expression and everything to do with freedom of association.

Using that part of the first amendment to justify the ruling was complete and utter BS. Its a very loose, poorly founded interpretation. Following the judge's broken logic, the real application of this ruling is that proms can no longer enforce dress codes. YAY SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Is it great that she got college money for being mistreated? Absolutely. Its a total crock that we're abusing the constitution in the process.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not seeing how the Constitution was abused, even if this had been a court ruling.

[IBCoupe]

I never understood why a private organization can't deny service to a specific group of people.

Because Congress said so in 1964. Through interpretation of the interstate commerce clause (broadly interpreted after 1937), under the theory that one place of public accommodation's discriminatory policy could have a negative effect on interstate commerce by dissuading people from traveling from one state to a discriminatory state (and thus hurt everyone, including the non-discriminatory businesses, in that discriminatory State), Congress said that places of public accommodation cannot discriminate against certain protected classes. Same law that said you can't discriminate against certain protected classes in your hiring policies.

See: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Article II

[Jesda]

I'm not seeing how the Constitution was abused, even if this had been a court ruling.

Because we're talking about the freedom of express part of the first amendment, which was only very slightly barely loosely related to the case. All this effectively does is set a legal precedent for dress code restrictions at school events.

You don't write laws from the bench.