Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep talking about Christians under attack. I'd suggest the Christians under attack are this lesbian couple who have been mistreated by the school.
Hey, the one girl is 18,...why would the "family" have any say? Isn't a female of 18 considered an adult in the eyes of the law? The only family that might have input would be the other student,...if she is underage.
"If she is under age?"
Isn't it obvious to you that many of the kids who attend high school proms are under age?
But your statement that the school denied prom because of the sexual orientation of one of its students is a leap.
I fully support this student's desire to attend prom. I think it was a silly rule to say that only opposite-sex couples could attend.
But at the same time, I also realize that the school board didn't make this decision just because a student was gay. Look at how divisive the issue is on a political forum. How much more divisive is it for the people living through this situation? The school board has to weigh issues like liability. If they waived the rule, but just a handful of students were prejudiced enough to disrupt the prom, there is a potential of violence. The school board has to consider that. If they went forward, and violence did break out, the school could and probably would be held liable. Given the economy and school funding issues, I think at least some of those school board members weren't only thinking of their prejudices when they voted to halt the prom. They were thinking about liability issues, and that's something we expect school board members to think about when we vote for them. Isn't it?
I think your rationalization is a leap. You are failing to account for the school's history of already imposing religious beliefs. I don't know if you are aware of this but the school allowed student led daily Bible teachings through the school intercom to which it was sued. This issue has nothing to do with the school trying to avoid violence, give me a break! This is about the school trying to deny access to a gay student and when they couldn't get their way, they decided to make what they thought was a moral stand and not offer prom at all rather than allow a gay student to attend. This the reason the ACLU got involved and why the school is now being sued.
I think it's easy to ignore the liability issues involved in a situation this if you are outside the situation, but when you are immediately involved, like the school board, the issues of potential violence at the prom, and the resultant liability have a profound resonance. School boards members are elected to their positions to consider just these kinds of issues.
Good point. Certainly in Mississippi there are a number of redneck, intolerant homophobes who are prone to violent actions, all of whom learned it from their parents...parents which likely serve on the school board.
The school obviously saw the problem and chose this method to correct it.
Please define what the problem was/is, as you see it, and explain why it was/is a problem in the first place.
You ducked this question at least once, but it has to be answered before you can play the "there's no discrimination because there's no prom for anyone" card.
But your statement that the school denied prom because of the sexual orientation of one of its students is a leap.
I fully support this student's desire to attend prom. I think it was a silly rule to say that only opposite-sex couples could attend.
But at the same time, I also realize that the school board didn't make this decision just because a student was gay. Look at how divisive the issue is on a political forum. How much more divisive is it for the people living through this situation? The school board has to weigh issues like liability. If they waived the rule, but just a handful of students were prejudiced enough to disrupt the prom, there is a potential of violence. The school board has to consider that. If they went forward, and violence did break out, the school could and probably would be held liable. Given the economy and school funding issues, I think at least some of those school board members weren't only thinking of their prejudices when they voted to halt the prom. They were thinking about liability issues, and that's something we expect school board members to think about when we vote for them. Isn't it?
I'm sure the lesbian couple isn't going to start a fist fight at the prom, but the incident of physical violence among heterosexuals is high enough that the school certainly has a plan to deal with that group.
I guess this is just the 2010 version of Southern states closing public schools and swimming pools when the courts tell them they have to let black people attend.
That's not nice. This isn't "Southern states", it's one school in Northern Mississippi. And, once again, there is good reason to believe that the school board decision was a bit more involved. Having been involved with putting together public events such as this, there are lots of things that have to be considered. Since children are involved, even if they are high school students, their safety and potential liability problems are at the top of the priority list. Discrimination clearly started the ball rolling, but there are other things that helped it gain momentum.
I'm sure the lesbian couple isn't going to start a fist fight at the prom, but the incident of physical violence among heterosexuals is high enough that the school certainly has a plan to deal with that group.
I can tell you that I'm sure they did have a plan to deal with incidental violence occurring. That's the whole business with chaperones and maintenance being on hand. Many schools also have a police officer or two hired as security. But it's different when in a situation like this you have a focus for the violence. And the school board members have to take that into consideration.
Not discimnatory if there is no prom. Can not discriminate against someone whne there is no event to discriminate for. The school obviously saw the problem and chose this method to correct it.
They are not offering prom out of reasons of discrimination.
That's not nice. This isn't "Southern states", it's one school in Northern Mississippi. And, once again, there is good reason to believe that the school board decision was a bit more involved. Having been involved with putting together public events such as this, there are lots of things that have to be considered. Since children are involved, even if they are high school students, their safety and potential liability problems are at the top of the priority list. Discrimination clearly started the ball rolling, but there are other things that helped it gain momentum.
What a bs answer. The school board is trying to cancel the prom because they are a bunch of bigots. Occam's Razor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
