Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request

[LightHorseman]

I will say that, as a Christian, I'm not accepting this lifestyle as normal and okay, so I guess I'm viewed as being hateful by some.

No one asked you too, despite P'sW's strawman. All anyone is asking you to do is stop oppressing people who don't subscribe to your religious views, based on your religious principals.

 

[NotreDame]

This is a frivilous lawsuit. Or at least her 1st Amendment claim is frivilous.

 

[LightHorseman]

This is a frivilous lawsuit. Or at least her 1st Amendment claim is frivilous.

How do you figure? The school is stopping her from free association, and from expressing herself through her clothing.

 

[a_nony_mous]

No, actually you use it to try to force those who disagree with you into accepting this lifestyle as normal and okay and when they don't you call them hateful.

Same difference.

How exactly is the homosexual lifestyle not okay? Just because the Bible says it's wrong doesn't mean that it is actually wrong. Learn to think for yourself, instead of letting the Bible think for you.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I will say that, as a Christian, I'm not accepting this lifestyle as normal and okay, so I guess I'm viewed as being hateful by some.

How are you not being hateful when you think there's something wrong with gay people?

 

[NotreDame]

How do you figure? The school is stopping her from free association, and from expressing herself through her clothing.

No they are not. Refusing to have a prom does not preclude her from associating with whoever she wants or from wearing whatever clothing she desires. She is still permitted, in the absence of a prom, from hanging out with as many gays and lesbians as she desires, along with joining any number of gay and lesbian groups, clubs, or social networks.

In addition, refusing to have a prom does not preclude her from wearing expressive clothing to school.

So you are exaggerating in stating the school has foreclosed her freedom of association and expression. Such fantastic exaggerations do not go far in the legal field.

 

[LightHorseman]

No they are not. Refusing to have a prom does not preclude her from associating with whoever she wants or from wearing whatever clothing she desires. She is still permitted, in the absence of a prom, from hanging out with as many gays and lesbians as she desires, along with joining any number of gay and lesbian groups, clubs, or social networks.

In addition, refusing to have a prom does not preclude her from wearing expressive clothing to school.

So you are exaggerating in stating the school has foreclosed her freedom of association and expression. Such fantastic exaggerations do not go far in the legal field.

Unless she can demonstrate in court that the whole reason the prom was cancelled was to stop her from attending the formal with another girl, in a tuxedo. I'm no lawyer, I have no idea what the courts will say. But to me, (admitedly, a layman) the matter appears to have standing, to say the least.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Learn what the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of love is and learn scripture before you decide to debate me on it. You will make a fool out of yourself, otherwise.

Okay, then, what is the Biblical definition of love, if it isn't loving others like Christ loves us, which means loving others unconditionally?

You assumed (incorrectly) I was speaking of a non-consensual relationship. A 17 year old cannot love a 40 year old?

As long as the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with both of them attending the prom as each other's dates.

It is loving to reject sinful nature. I am sorry if that is so hard for you to understand. If someone is doing something that separates them from the will of God it is not loving to just sit back and say, "Oh, well. It makes them happy."

So you'd rather that gays were made to feel unhappy, just so you could feel good about following your interpretation of the Bible?

Skin color and eye color are not sinful in nature, nor are birth defects.

Christian Identity Churches (the churches that members of the KKK and Neo-Nazis go to) would disagree with you there. And who are you to say their interpretation of the Bible is less correct than yours is?

A Christian will reject a heterosexual relationship between an atheist and a Christian or any other destructive relationship just as much as a homosexual relation. If the relationship is not in line with the WILL OF GOD then it is rejected.

In other words, even though their love is the same as the love anyone else feels, you feel the need to say their relationship is wrong. How exactly is that loving of you? Do you really think that breaking up loving relationships is somehow loving at all?

Unless God has changed on the whole abomination thing- He has NOT- then Christians (at least those who adhere to scripture) will reject homosexual behavior... it doesn't really matter if the rest of the world changes it's collective mind.

In other words, you're determined to keep your hateful opinions, no matter what I say. How sad. Would it be so awful for you to love and accept gay people for who they are, same-sex attractions and all?

 

[NotreDame]

Unless she can demonstrate in court that the whole reason the prom was cancelled was to stop her from attending the formal with another girl, in a tuxedo. I'm no lawyer, I have no idea what the courts will say. But to me, (admitedly, a layman) the matter appears to have standing, to say the least.

I never disputed the fact she had standing, so your reference to it is rather puzzling.

Second, this analysis is much better than the prior lame allegation they were violating freedom of association and expression. Rather, your remark above is asserting the planned school event was cancelled based on the content of her expression and freedom of association. This is a much better claim and argument to be made.

Typically, the government cannot censor a message based on its content, unless it falls within the well defined and long recognized exceptions of A.) slander B.) libel C.) incitement, Brandenberg v. Ohio, D.) threats or E.) regulation/censorship, not because of the content, but the effect of the message (Tinker v. Des Moines).

Here, we have to assume censorship exists by the cancellation of prom. To be sure, the young lady cannot express herself, or her freedom of association at the prom, but I question whether cancellation of it constitutes as censorship of her message.

In addition, we have to further assume dating someone, or taking someone to the prom as a date, constitutes as freedom of association and I am not sure this is true. The caselaw in this area has never involved just two people but a considerable group, such as clubs, organizations, fraternities, etcetera.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

How exactly is the homosexual lifestyle not okay? Just because the Bible says it's wrong doesn't mean that it is actually wrong. Learn to think for yourself, instead of letting the Bible think for you.

I do think for myself. But see, here is another example of where because I don't agree with you, you automatically assume that I cannot think for myself. Nice.

I'll stick with what I know to be true rather than what society wants to shove down my throat, thank you very much.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

How are you not being hateful when you think there's something wrong with gay people?

I think there is something wrong with the lifestyle they lead. It does not lead me to love them any less, despite what you'd like people to believe.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I never disputed the fact she had standing, so your reference to it is rather puzzling.

Second, this analysis is much better than the prior lame allegation they were violating freedom of association and expression. Rather, your remark above is asserting the planned school event was cancelled based on the content of her expression and freedom of association. This is a much better claim and argument to be made.

Typically, the government cannot censor a message based on its content, unless it falls within the well defined and long recognized exceptions of A.) slander B.) libel C.) incitement, Brandenberg v. Ohio, D.) threats or E.) regulation/censorship, not because of the content, but the effect of the message (Tinker v. Des Moines).

Here, we have to assume censorship exists by the cancellation of prom. To be sure, the young lady cannot express herself, or her freedom of association at the prom, but I question whether cancellation of it constitutes as censorship of her message.

In addition, we have to further assume dating someone, or taking someone to the prom as a date, constitutes as freedom of association and I am not sure this is true. The caselaw in this area has never involved just two people but a considerable group, such as clubs, organizations, fraternities, etcetera.

If the prom had been cancelled because the girl wanted to wear a crucifix and bring a Christian boy as her date, I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune. Your prejudices towards GLBT people are far too obvious. Stop trying to pretend they don't exist.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I do think for myself. But see, here is another example of where because I don't agree with you, you automatically assume that I cannot think for myself. Nice.

I'll stick with what I know to be true rather than what society wants to shove down my throat, thank you very much.

No, you don't think for yourself. If you did, then you would actually be willing to think through the issue of homosexuality, looking at all possible angles of it, before developing an opinion on it, and you would be completely okay with it if your opinion ended up differing from what the Bible says.

Nice try, but you're just like every other Christian out there: blinded by the Bible.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I think there is something wrong with the lifestyle they lead. It does not lead me to love them any less, despite what you'd like people to believe.

What exactly is so "wrong" about their lifestyle? Again, just because the Bible says something is wrong doesn't mean that it is, in fact, wrong.

 

[NotreDame]

If the prom had been cancelled because the girl wanted to wear a crucifix and bring a Christian boy as her date, I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune. Your prejudices towards GLBT people are far too obvious. Stop trying to pretend they don't exist.

I am not going to dignify these remarks other than to say the next time you presume to know anything about me, my beliefs, and ideas, and represent to know them here in a post, I will be notifying the moderators. You do not know me, my beliefs, my inclinations, nothing, and your above speculative post is irrelevant in this dialogue.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

I am not going to dignify these remarks other than to say the next time you presume to know anything about me, my beliefs, and ideas, and represent to know them here in a post, I will be notifying the moderators. You do not know me, my beliefs, my inclinations, nothing, and your above speculative post is irrelevant in this dialog.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If you, and I am not saying you are, are bigoted against gays then your judgment is clouded in regards to the case at hand.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I am not going to dignify these remarks other than to say the next time you presume to know anything about me, my beliefs, and ideas, and represent to know them here in a post, I will be notifying the moderators. You do not know me, my beliefs, my inclinations, nothing, and your above speculative post is irrelevant in this dialogue.

Wow. Chill, man. People make assumptions about each other all the time on here. It's not an infraction of the rules in any way, so you would be doing nothing but wasting the Moderators' time if you reported me for that.

My point still stands, by the way, and the fact that you got so offended by what I said just shows that it must be true.

 

[NotreDame]

Actually, it has everything to do with it. If you, and I am not saying you are, are bigoted against gays then your judgment is clouded in regards to the case at hand.

No...it does not because you presume one cannot provide an objective analysis in spite of their beliefs to the contrary. The fact is, my beliefs, whatever they may be, are irrelevant to my analysis provided thus far. In fact, legally speaking, my analysis so far is correct. Your presumption a particular belief "clouds" judgment is not true as it assumes, erroneously I might add, one can utilize objective judgment in spite of contrary beliefs.

For example, I happen to believe engaging in same sex acts is sinful but should not be illegal and a law prohibiting such acts violates notions of liberty.

So please let's not defend the indefensible remark made by Anonymous. Furthermore, even if true, what, if anything, do they have to do with the truthfulness, rightness, or correctness of my position? Absolutely nothing. The validity, veracity, etcetera, of my position is not predicated upon whether I have any bias, which renders such a focus irrelevant.

 

[a_nony_mous]

So please let's not defend the indefensible remark made by Anonymous. Furthermore, even if true, what, if anything, do they have to do with the truthfulness, rightness, or correctness of my position? Absolutely nothing. The validity, veracity, etcetera, of my position is not predicated upon whether I have any bias, which renders such a focus irrelevant.

So you're saying that personal bias can't affect the opinions someone holds? You think that if someone is biased against Chinese people, they won't be more likely than anyone else to hold anti-Chinese opinions? Sorry, but that's not the way logic works at all. Try again.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

So please let's not defend the indefensible remark made by Anonymous. Furthermore, even if true, what, if anything, do they have to do with the truthfulness, rightness, or correctness of my position? Absolutely nothing. The validity, veracity, etcetera, of my position is not predicated upon whether I have any bias, which renders such a focus irrelevant.

If you believe that being is fundamentally wrong, a sin against God, then how can you remain impartial in this case?