[Kentl]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Regardless of one's views on this subject, I think that's oversimplifying a little.

how so? this is probely off subject.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Sure. Of course that goes double for Jews. So what is the point of comparing how bad this group has been persecuted vs. that group? These are the commonly cited criteria in American philosophy of law for placing a group in suspect classification:

• The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
• The group is a "discrete" or "insular" minority.
• They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.
• They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

Are homosexuals similar to African Americans in this way? Well, legally speaking no. But that's likely to change in the future and I can't say I'm surprised. Where I'm from, unfortunately, people are not content to simply disagree about homosexuality. They tend to use slurs, play up embarrassing stereotypes, and actively ostracize "out" gays.

how are they not legally similar in those ways?

1. the group has been historically discriminated against, the end of your post confirms that
2. not really sure what this means, but if I take the typical definition of discrete, I don't know how homosexuals are any less discrete than blacks, hispanics, or women.
3. homosexuality would be the immutable trait here
4. how are homosexuals any more powerful to protect themselves via the political process than blacks were during the civil rights movement.

[adamwagg]

Let's keep on the Prom topic and not either on comparisons between racisim and the discrimination against homosexuals or the bibilical morality of either. (Feel free to make threads about these in the relevant forums).

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

how are they not legally similar in those ways?

All I meant by that is that the supreme court has never treated that group as such. There is no precedent at the federal level. I agree with you otherwise.

Originally Posted by adamwagg

Let's keep on the Prom topic and not either on comparisons between racisim and the discrimination against homosexuals or the bibilical morality of either. (Feel free to make threads about these in the relevant forums).

Biblical morality may not be directly related but I think there is plenty of room to discuss law. After all this is resulting in a lawsuit. Of course you're the bossman here.

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Biblical morality may not be directly related but I think there is plenty of room to discuss law. After all this is resulting in a lawsuit. Of course you're the bossman here.

Happy with discussing the law as it relates to the topic. Just don't want an emotional battle to erupt over whether the discrimination of homosexuals was equivalent or not to that of different races/genders, which I think will end poorly and not really add to the conversation. Your thread of conversation on the legal definitions of discrimination is fine.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by supersoldier71

I am not a woman.

Nor were you of any signifigant age during the Jim Crowe period, nor (I suspect) are you homoesexual.

So, if we are discussing personal experience, you do not fit in any of the categories and cannot possibly compare two from experience.

And the statement is inaccurate based on the astonishing numbers of acts of violence perpetrated on African Americans during the slavery period and more so during the Reconstruction Period and beyond. The scale was larger, if nothing else.

That's actually a more nuanced argumentthan you might think... but it's also irrellevent as it's not what I was comparing.

Analogies are good, but they eventually fail... like cars.

And that's not even addressing the question of being gay versus being African-American in Biblical terms, which would be a stark contrast indeed.

And not the topic.

Speaking of the topic. I understand a prom or two has been cancelled over interracial couples.

Honestly though, if there was real controversy (outside the school administration), I believe the school was right to simply cancel the entire thing. The safety and function of the school as a school takes prescedence over prom. In being fair to no one, it was fair to everyone.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Honestly though, if there was real controversy (outside the school administration), I believe the school was right to simply cancel the entire thing. The safety and function of the school as a school takes prescedence over prom. In being fair to no one, it was fair to everyone.

I disagree, because while academics is paramount, I do think that students learning tolerance and how to handle things in an adult manner is equally important.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I disagree, because while academics is paramount, I do think that students learning tolerance and how to handle things in an adult manner is equally important.

So how many protests in front of the school would be too many? What percentage of the school population should be allowed to be pulled by pissed off parents before it's too disruptive?

It seems that education is already too distracted with the pro-wrestling that is the politics of content of real education (Texas wants to change the history books now too).

If the issue was from outside the school itself: I don't think there's anything to learn by any other course... other than "if you are pissed, sue the school".

[Bryan]

Instant Tea » Blog Archive » Constance wins her lawsuit, but still loses her prom

well she won her law suit, but still doesn't get to go to prom.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Instant Tea » Blog Archive » Constance wins her lawsuit, but still loses her prom

FTA:

And Bryan Fischer, the AFA’s director of issue analysis, breaks out the same old tired “same right to be straight” argument used against marriage equality efforts. He said: “The school had one policy that applied to every student equally. If Ms. McMillen wanted to bring a date to the prom, she had the same right every other student had, to bring a date of the opposite sex. She already had equal rights, but that wasn’t enough for the thugs at the ACLU. They want special rights for homosexuals, not equal rights.”

Haha. That is a pretty dense comment. If the right to bring a date of the opposite sex belongs to everyone then why wouldn't the right to bring a date of the same sex? And I guess he finds the work the ACLU has done on behalf of Christians to be thuggish as well?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by slap_j

FTA:

And Bryan Fischer, the AFA’s director of issue analysis, breaks out the same old tired “same right to be straight” argument used against marriage equality efforts. He said: “The school had one policy that applied to every student equally. If Ms. McMillen wanted to bring a date to the prom, she had the same right every other student had, to bring a date of the opposite sex. She already had equal rights, but that wasn’t enough for the thugs at the ACLU. They want special rights for homosexuals, not equal rights.”

Haha. That is a pretty dense comment. If the right to bring a date of the opposite sex belongs to everyone then why wouldn't the right to bring a date of the same sex? And I guess he finds the work the ACLU has done on behalf of Christians to be thuggish as well?

he's pretty much a turd

[rock_show_host]

Based on the comments I've heard and read about this case, it really saddens me to think about the damage that people like Bryan Fischer are doing to the world's view of Christianity.

She won the suit, so hopefully the school will at least be forced to revise its policies in the future.

[Bryan]

here's a good story: Gay-rights backers reach out to Bleckley senior - Local & State - Macon.com

[rock_show_host]

Also, for anyone who wants to put a face and voice to a name:

YouTube - Constance McMillen Talks Cancelled Prom Incident on The Ellen DeGeneres Show (2010-03-19) [Part 3/7]