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.
And the school corrected it in one of two ways they could. It is no longer discriminatory
Intending to deny access to a person due to her sexual orientation is discrimination. Not offering prom to all is not a solution. It doesn't erase the discrimination that has occurred. It's similar to a school saying they won't offer prom to anyone to prevent a few Black students from attending. Under the law, you are not allowed to discriminate against someone for their race or sexual orientation among other things.
I don't consider canceling the prom discrimination since everyone got the shaft. Many schools don't even bother with prom type activities and that's OK. It doesn't really matter WHY this school decided to cancel prom as long as the consequences don't discriminate.
The intent does matter. Companies are allowed to fire people. They are not allowed to fire people based on their sexual orientation. Schools don't have to offer prom. They are not allowed to deny prom to prevent a gay student from attending hence the reason the ACLU of Mississippi filed a suit against the school district on behalf of the student.
Based on your argument, no school should offer a prom at any time because there are endless possibilities that threaten the safety of students. Probability is weighed into any decision people make. Denying such is absurd. Will the school not offer prom due to the low probability of an electrical fire? You would have a stronger argument if there was evidence threatening violence should the student be given access but there has been no evidence of that.
That's not my argument.
My argument is simply that I don't know the people on the school board in this community. That as someone who has planned public events, I know that there are many considerations that go into it. And that since I don't know the people involved, and they were planning a large public event, that it's just as fair to think that they were considering other issues besides their bigotry as to not think it.
Since so many of you are condemning people you don't know, I thought it worthwhile to interject the possibility that they weren't just all bigots. That the world isn't just black and white. That no one is 100% pure and good, and no one is 100% pure and evil.
My argument is simply that I don't know the people on the school board in this community. That as someone who has planned public events, I know that there are many considerations that go into it. And that since I don't know the people involved, and they were planning a large public event, that it's just as fair to think that they were considering other issues besides their bigotry as to not think it.
Since so many of you are condemning people you don't know, I thought it worthwhile to interject the possibility that they weren't just all bigots. That the world isn't just black and white. That no one is 100% pure and good, and no one is 100% pure and evil.
I don't consider canceling the prom discrimination since everyone got the shaft. Many schools don't even bother with prom type activities and that's OK. It doesn't really matter WHY this school decided to cancel prom as long as the consequences don't discriminate.
Then maybe they should cancel physical education classes too. Gay guys might be checking out straight guys in the locker room.
Once again, I think it's presumptive to say that they canceled the entire prom just to deny access to a gay student.
How is it presumptive when the school has a policy that denies same sex couples and states the girl can't wear a tuxedo to the event? I mean it was written out for godsake and you still think it's presumptive?? How is it presumptive when the school was promoting Biblical teaching in the past and was sued for it?
Sorry but I think you are too intelligent of a person to believe the school shut down prom for "safety reasons". It just proves you have an agenda to defend the South at all costs and now everyone else can see that too.
How is it presumptive when the school has a policy that denies same sex couples and states the girl can't wear a tuxedo to the event? I mean it was written out for godsake and you still think it's presumptive?? How is it presumptive when the school was promoting Biblical teaching in the past and was sued for it?
Sorry but I think you are too intelligent of a person to believe the school shut down prom for "safety reasons". It just proves you have an agenda to defend the South at all costs and now everyone else can see that too.
It's presumptive because I don't know the members of the school board, and neither do you. You are presuming to know their motivations, based on what?
I haven't defended their actions, I've simply pointed out that as someone who's organized similar public events, that there many considerations which have to take place.
Why is it more reasonable to think that they made their decision based solely for bigoted reasons? Isn't it just as reasonable to point out that there may have been other factors that played into their decision? Why is that not reasonable?
And I'm so tired of you accusing me of defending the South at all costs, I'm not even going to reply. This is one school. This is not "the South".
It's presumptive because I don't know the members of the school board, and neither do you. You are presuming to know their motivations, based on what?
I haven't defended their actions, I've simply pointed out that as someone who's organized similar public events, that there many considerations which have to take place.
Why is it more reasonable to think that they made their decision based solely for bigoted reasons? Isn't it just as reasonable to point out that there may have been other factors that played into their decision? Why is that not reasonable?
And I'm so tired of you accusing me of defending the South at all costs, I'm not even going to reply. This is one school. This is not "the South".
So in order to deduct the motivations of an individual you always have to know them personally? So if there is a lynching, you have to have a personal relationship with the perpetrators to know their intent? It is painfully obvious what happened here. It is based on homophobia and bigotry... Nothing else. I'm not sure what the fact that you've "organized public events" has to do with anything. There is liability and risk inherent in almost every event. If this particular event was so laden with danger and potential liability, all similar events (PROMS) across the country would be in danger of cancellation. that doesn't seem to be happening.
Regarding the south. You're right. This is one school in the south. I look at it this way. Everyone who lives in the south is not a bigoted homophobe. However, most of the time when there is a group of bigoted homophobes who do something like this-- they are likely in the south.
So in order to deduct the motivations of an individual you always have to know them personally? So if there is a lynching, you have to have a personal relationship with the perpetrators to know their intent? It is painfully obvious what happened here. It is based on homophobia and bigotry... Nothing else. I'm not sure what the fact that you've "organized public events" has to do with anything. There is liability and risk inherent in almost every event. If this particular event was so laden with danger and potential liability, all similar events (PROMS) across the country would be in danger of cancellation. that doesn't seem to be happening.
Regarding the south. You're right. This is one school in the south. I look at it this way. Everyone who lives in the south is not a bigoted homophobe. However, most of the time when there is a group of bigoted homophobes who do something like this-- they are likely in the south.
Let's look at it this way.
A group of people do something.
Neither you nor I know the people.
Since I don't know the people, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that their action was motivated by reasons other than bigotry.
You don't know the people, but you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that their action was motivated by reasons other than bigotry.
Based on the fact that neither of us know the people, which is the more reasonable position?
The intent does matter. Companies are allowed to fire people. They are not allowed to fire people based on their sexual orientation. Schools don't have to offer prom. They are not allowed to deny prom to prevent a gay student from attending hence the reason the ACLU of Mississippi filed a suit against the school district on behalf of the student.
But a company can shut down and go out of business
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.
