no, not everyone can get married. that's part of the problem.

um, i'm not the one that brought up the emancipation proclamation.

Seriously folks. This isn't a civil war or about civil rights...or communism or what have you. Let em' go to the prom, man.

Watch how simple this is!!!

«... We don't want to be part of the fundamentalist christian minority and their intolerant lifestyle. YOU can't force us to give up our constitutional right to 'not believe or practice' such an intolerant and unchristian religion simply because YOU say so!!!

That's where the Constitution and the 'rule of law' trumps all beliefs or non-beliefs, the 'just because YOU say so' part, is null and void!!!

You were saying 'double standard'!?!?!?

It's just A PROM , man!!!

Let em' GO TO THE PROM!!!!!!!

Yes it is Government run but every town has their own laws,rules,and standards that are totally different from the next town.People who live in these towns makes the laws and rules that concern public services such as Police,Public schools,City parks,etc.It is the people who have control over what goes on in their town or city.These laws are voted in during elections and majority wins.

I really don't think people care about two girls or two guys going to prom.I think the bigger issue here is you have a whole town who is against these two girls and what they represent and what they are bringing to the school.From my expierence with small towns I know that small towns are like family.From what I have read the entire town is around 4,000 people.I don't like the idea that one person should have all the leverage over the whole town.It's their town,they made the laws,people who live their should abide by them.

Right or wrong I do believe this woman should have considered the people who live in this small town and what they believe.I'm still waiting for a gay person to say "I respect the views opposite of mine but I disagree".Instead all we hear is "They are a bunch of ingorant,racists,homophobes".Thanks to the ACLU and this woman this small town and everyone in it is going to forever labeled as "Nothing but a bunch of racist,homophobes,living in the 19th century".

As far as first ammendment rights and public schools.Where do you draw the line on these issues.Shouldn't everyone be allowed to smoke because smoking is a expression of their personality?What about not wearing a T-shirt on a hot day?Maybe you don't like to take showers and you stink.Is it infringing on your rights if the school kicks you out because you smell bad?The point is there is thousands of ways to express yourself that the majority of people would have problems with.We have to have some sort of agreement(which is left to the town to vote on)so everyone will enjoy coming to school.

Please...PLEASE!!!!

Refer to my above aforementioned post, man!!!!!!!!

this does not prove she was not dediscriminated against . in fact I'm not even a lawyer and could win this .. It just shows how bad they would go to to punish her .
little towns , big towns , states cannot make laws over the federal laws . it seems people have not recieved much of an education in consitutional laws lately . give it up bigots they have as much rights as any of you , even as much as people who come here and lie about there poor lifes .

Tell it to someone who cares.Not getting into one of your endless debates about religion.

these threads crack me up we can be picky on who we choose to date but,nothing else can be picky cause of how picky they are

According to the court papers the only thing she was discriminated against was her right to express herself.It's about as petty as it gets and ranks right up there with a nudist wanting to garden nude because she likes nature.The judge did not say anything about the ban for gays at prom.I'm sure there is thousands of people being discriminated against at prom time every year.People wanting to wear street clothes,people wanting to wear costumes,hair styles,etc.Should they also sue too?There was a teacher in California that was actually lifting the dresses of girls checking for thongs because she thought they should be wearing panties at prom and would not allow them to go.

All wrong! Other way around!

Find an equally juvenile and derogatory metaphor for the 3 school officials whom where found to have failed in their responsibilities
under the Mississippi Code of 1972, SEC. 37-9-69. 'General duties of superintendents, principals and teachers'.

Among other responsibilities, they are held accountable to uphold First Amendment Rights for all students and staff of a given school.

That's YOUR opinion. Feel better now? Are you sure you're not really Keith Olbermann ... ? I hope you're sitting far enough away from your monitor, otherwise it's gonna be hard viewing it thru all the spittle-flecks. Do you roll up the paper and toss it, too ... ?

Slow dance!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qilMbQ563wE

I am unlocking this thread and clean it up. Please remember no derogatory or offensive references to sex, gender, ethnicity, religions, or sexual orientation.

Kim

The school is public property..........

The is the ONLY time I will ever say this in my life, I hope the ACLU east the principal and all the school people involved in this discrimination for lunch.

I think the point is being missed. We are not talking about a CLASS at school, or schoolbooks that other students have, or a desk,,,,we are talking about a SCHOOL DANCE..which is a privilege to begin with and not a RIGHT. schools can and do choose or not choose to have dances all the time

AND

because the dance was cancelled for EVERYONE she cant prove that she was specifically discriminated against or that the dance was cancelled because of her lifestyle as opposed to being cancelled because of the unwanted publicity the story brought to the dance,,

You are missing the point msharmony,

School officials, whom Ms McMillenn informed of her intentions, DENIED HER what were her, and anyone else living in the USA, legitimate First Amendment rights assured under the Constitution.

The school officials had their day in court, pleaded their case, and were found to have failed to uphold their obligations, to guarantee Ms McMillenn her first amendment rights, as they are bound to do under the Mississippi Code of 1972, SEC. 37-9-69: 'General duties of superintendents, principals and teachers'.

It's that's simple: under US law, the conditions that the school officials imposed on MsMcMillenn, were a clear/cut case of DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

WHETHER THE DANCE TOOK PLACE OR NOT, MSMCMILLENN WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAISNT.

That's the 'rule of law'!!! The only 'opinion' that counts in a civil and democratic society which is governed under the rule of law.

Those laws were legislated by democratically elected representatives of the People. Those Laws are the ultimate and only 'MAJORITY' that count.

A 'msjority' of people at the school not wanting to be around MsMillenn unless she met their petty personal 'religious' CONDITIONS, as 'thomas' colorfully expressed it, are plain and simple INTOLERANT AND EQUALLY GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION.

To push the ill logic further, imagine a dance with a written rule, and signs at the front door, 'NO INTOLERANT CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS ALLOWED'!!!

Impossible is right!

And so it is with 'NO TUXEDO WEARING HOMOSEXUAL GIRL WITH SAME SEX PARTNER ALLOWED'!!!

If gays have to tolerate the 'intolerant fundamentalist christians', this latter bunch is bound under the Constitution to respect the same rights for all gays, regardless of any and all personal religious beliefs or dogma.

I am not sure where marriage is mentioned in the constitution as a right,, but thats another issue

If we are looking at it as pursuit of happiness,, it has regulations but basically requires the union of one man and one woman, of age of consent, and sound mind. Nowhere does it mention lifestyle choice.

Homosexual male has the same RIGHT to marry a female that a straight male does, or else it would be perfectly legal for a BROTHER and SISTER who had fallen in love to marry as well, ..marriage requirements mention nothing about WHO you LOVE,, whether its his PREFERENCE is another matter.

marriage is set up as the foundation of society, the union that CREATES society by creating life,, that of the man and the woman

I have to disagree here with the definition of a RIGHT, rights do not protect people from PERSONAL attacks, they protect them from legal ones. The law does not allow assaults on anyone, or discrimination at work either. The law also allows gay people to adopt,, it happens quite often if you take a look at the celebrity world. As far as living life like everyone else does,, homosexuals do that too,,,everyone else faces some type of bigotry and obstacles in their life...

That line of thinking, IMO, is thwarted msharmony!!!

Contrary to your observation above, laws are meant to protect all individuals from all PERSONAL ATTACKS!!!

Whether physical, verbal or psychological, all discriminatory or physically abusive acts against anyone's basic integrity, is exactly that from which individual rights laws are designed to protect all individuals: '... prevent all attacks against all individuals...!'

Now I'll grant you that we couldn't afford to enforce the full reach of the law, given ALL the bigotry, and cultivated mentality of 'judgemental intolerance' 'thomas' often describes in his posts, which fuels a toxic flow of acts of intolerance and discrimination, a lot of which go unpunished.

But the letter of the law is very clear: no individual should be subjected to bigotry, intolerance or discrimination, regardless of one's personal interpretation of one's religious beliefs.