Mississippi School does the right thing: Bans prom due to Lesbian couple attending.

[Wry Catcher]

This was a smart move by the Mississippi School District in banning the High School Prom due to a immoral lesbian couple wanting to attend that would taint the event. Here in the south we want southern family MORAL traditions maintained that will carry on in this christian faith based family conservative values region. It is best to mainstain the status quo of boy girl dates. Louisiana did this last year at a prom and banned the same sex couple by sticking to their moral convictions in doing the right thing. This same sex behavior should recieve zero tolerance at all school events.

Living | Miss. school prom off after lesbian's date request | Seattle Times Newspaper

JACKSON, Miss. —
A northern Mississippi school district decided Wednesday not to host a high school prom after a lesbian student demanded she be able to attend with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.

The Itawamba County school district's policy requires that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex. The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi had given the district until Wednesday to change that policy and allow 18-year-old Constance McMillen to escort her girlfriend, who is also a student, to the dance on April 2.

Instead, the school board met and issued a statement announcing it wouldn't host the event at Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Fulton, "due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events."

The statement didn't mention McMillen or the ACLU. When asked by The Associated Press if McMillen's demand led to the cancellation, school board attorney Michele Floyd said she could only reference the statement.

"It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors," district officials said in the statement. "However, at this time, we feel that it is in the best interest of the Itawamba County School District, after taking into consideration the education, safety and well being of our students."

One more example of traditional conservative values - bigotry and censorship.

 

[manifold]

Pawned it on the girl. Cowards.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't consider it cowardice to merely obey the law.

Clueless isn't just a movie.

(the school is the one breaking the law)

Can you point me to the statute that requires they sponsor a prom?

 

[manifold]

One more example of traditional conservative values - bigotry and censorship.

I agree.

But the school still managed to express their bigotry without breaking the law.

 

[bodecea]

One more example of traditional conservative values - bigotry and censorship.

I agree.

But the school still managed to express their bigotry without breaking the law.

Criminal law yes...but we will have to see if depriving an entire group of people of a tradition in order to avoid allowing someone they don't approve of participating is sue-able.

 

[manifold]

One more example of traditional conservative values - bigotry and censorship.

I agree.

But the school still managed to express their bigotry without breaking the law.

Criminal law yes...but we will have to see if depriving an entire group of people of a tradition in order to avoid allowing someone they don't approve of participating is sue-able.

And you think it should be?

 

[bodecea]

I agree.

But the school still managed to express their bigotry without breaking the law.

Criminal law yes...but we will have to see if depriving an entire group of people of a tradition in order to avoid allowing someone they don't approve of participating is sue-able.

And you think it should be?

I think they are scum for doing it....however, I am not a civil rights lawyer...don't know what the criteria is. If it is sue-able...sure. This was a deliberate act to do two things: 1) deprive this girl of her right to go to the prom with the date of her choice and 2) turn the rest of the students against her.


Do you think this would have been sue-able if she was asking to bring a black student as her date and the school district did the same thing?

 

[CurveLight]

One more example of traditional conservative values - bigotry and censorship.

I agree.

But the school still managed to express their bigotry without breaking the law.

Then what law were you referencing when you said it wasn't cowardly to follow the law?

 

[DiamondDave]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

 

[CurveLight]

Call me old fashioned, but I don't consider it cowardice to merely obey the law.

Clueless isn't just a movie.

(the school is the one breaking the law)

Can you point me to the statute that requires they sponsor a prom?

Never said there is a statute stating the school must have a prom. What else you got strawman?

 

[manifold]

One more example of traditional conservative values - bigotry and censorship.

I agree.

But the school still managed to express their bigotry without breaking the law.

Then what law were you referencing when you said it wasn't cowardly to follow the law?

They didn't break ANY laws nitwit. Pick any law you want, they didn't break it.

 

[manifold]

Clueless isn't just a movie.

(the school is the one breaking the law)

Can you point me to the statute that requires they sponsor a prom?

Never said there is a statute stating the school must have a prom. What else you got strawman?

Again, cite the law they broke.

 

[bodecea]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

True...but when a school district cancels an entire prom for an entire class in order to avoid allowing one couple to go....there is intent to discriminate.

Of course, a court of law has to make determination as to intent to discriminate.

 

[manifold]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

True...but when a school district cancels an entire prom for an entire class in order to avoid allowing one couple to go....there is intent to discriminate.

Of course, a court of law has to make determination as to intent to discriminate.

I say the exact opposite. They took action to explicitly NOT discriminate.

I agree that they're douchers for doing what they did, but they certainly didn't discriminate.

 

[CurveLight]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

Try to keep up. If a public school sponsors a prom they cannot discriminate by sex. That is against the Constitution.

 

[manifold]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

Try to keep up. If a public school sponsors a prom they cannot discriminate by sex. That is against the Constitution.

And they didn't.


Thanks for your invaluable contributions to this discussion.

 

[CurveLight]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

True...but when a school district cancels an entire prom for an entire class in order to avoid allowing one couple to go....there is intent to discriminate.

Of course, a court of law has to make determination as to intent to discriminate.

I say the exact opposite. They took action to explicitly NOT discriminate.

I agree that they're douchers for doing what they did, but they certainly didn't discriminate.

It doesn't matter they cancelled this particular prom. The school policy is still on the books and it's still against the law to discriminate based on sex.

 

[Dis]

What a complete load of shit. It's a school dance. If someone is *that* offended, they don't really need to go. My guess is 99% of people would have gone anyway.

 

[CurveLight]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

Try to keep up. If a public school sponsors a prom they cannot discriminate by sex. That is against the Constitution.

And they didn't.


Thanks for your invaluable contributions to this discussion.

It's always sad when a britney spears quality brainiac like you tries to pounce on others' posts. The school's policy discriminates on the basis of sex by saying a female cannot wear a tux and by stating all dates must be of the opposite sex. What you do not understand is that policy transcends the fact they cancelled prom for this year. There are two ways the school can be in compliance with the law: permanently cancel all proms in the future thus removing the policy altogether or amend the policy to bring it into America where equality is paramount. You Crotch Watchers are the parasites of the American Dream.

 

[DiamondDave]

Uhhhhhhhhhh... nobody has a 'right' to go to a prom

True...but when a school district cancels an entire prom for an entire class in order to avoid allowing one couple to go....there is intent to discriminate.

Of course, a court of law has to make determination as to intent to discriminate.

Or the district is doing it because they are mitigating risk... they are under no requirement to make it a feel good experience for all.... just because things are tolerated does not mean that everyone, including a school system, needs to accept or coddle to choices

Oh... and BTW.. this is not discriminating because of 'sex'... there are only 2 sexes, male and female... nobody is being excluded because they are a male or because they are a female... not allowing certain behaviors, is not covered as 'discrimination'

 

[DiamondDave]

Try to keep up. If a public school sponsors a prom they cannot discriminate by sex. That is against the Constitution.

And they didn't.


Thanks for your invaluable contributions to this discussion.

It's always sad when a britney spears quality brainiac like you tries to pounce on others' posts. The school's policy discriminates on the basis of sex by saying a female cannot wear a tux and by stating all dates must be of the opposite sex. What you do not understand is that policy transcends the fact they cancelled prom for this year. There are two ways the school can be in compliance with the law: permanently cancel all proms in the future thus removing the policy altogether or amend the policy to bring it into America where equality is paramount. You Crotch Watchers are the parasites of the American Dream.

Yet we have appropriateness in dress rules everywhere from work to school to public establishments... girls are not discriminated against because they are told they must wear appropriate formal wear, nor because they are told not to wear something too revealing... it is not discrimination when boys have been instructed they cannot wear dresses, etc....