equality? rights of self serving selfishness

[RangerM]

Not because of their sexual preference, religion or disability. I can't think of any situation where a person's sexual preference, religion or disability would be a factor in how I treat them. I know several gay people - some I like and some I do not. Has nothing to do with the fact that they are gay.

So you have no boundaries of acceptable behavior (based on those characteristics), in any situation, no matter what? In other words, no matter what wild scenario I can make up, you're ok with it.

 

I'm really pushing that point, because that's where I see our differences originate.

Edited March 17, 2010 by RangerM

[akirby]

There is no Federal law that says descrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. The 20 states you mention are free to repeal the laws in question at any time. You've also ignored the other 30, btw.

 

Executive Order 13087, issued on May 28, 1998, prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation within Executive Branch civilian employment. The Executive Order states this policy uniformly by adding sexual orientation to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited. The other categories are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, and age. On May 2, 2000, Executive Order 13153 added "status as a parent" to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited.

 

It is the policy of the Federal Government to provide an equal opportunity to all of its employees. Federal employees should be able to perform their jobs in workplaces free from discrimination-whether that discrimination is based on color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or sexual orientation. The President's Executive Order states, as a matter of Federal policy, that a person's sexual orientation should not be the basis for the denial of a job or a promotion. As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government sets an example for other employers that employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not acceptable.

 

The only reason it's not a LAW is because Congress is filled with religious zealots who still feel that being gay is wrong because it goes against their religious beliefs - or their consitutents believe that and they don't want to piss them off by supporting any type of laws that condone it.

[RangerM]

I can't think of any situation where a person's .....religion....... would be a factor in how I treat them.

The only reason it's not a LAW is because Congress is filled with religious zealots who still feel that being gay is wrong because it goes against their religious beliefs......

Hmm.

[akirby]

So you have no boundaries of acceptable behavior (based on those characteristics), in any situation, no matter what? In other words, no matter what wild scenario I can make up, you're ok with it.

 

I'm really pushing that point, because that's where I see our differences originate.

 

Of course I do. The difference is that I apply standards of acceptable behavior to everyone. I do not apply a different standard to gays. In this case, attending the prom as a couple with one girl wearing a tux seems to be perfectly acceptable behavior to me. Gay couples exist in real life. Women wear suits and tuxedos. Couples go to the prom together. I don't consider that inappropriate behavior. As long as they're doing whatever the hetero couples are doing I don't see the problem.

[akirby]

Hmm.

 

I don't care what they believe or what religion they practice. Failing to enact a law to protect people is inappropriate BEHAVIOR.

[RangerM]

Of course I do. The difference is that I apply standards of acceptable behavior to everyone. I do not apply a different standard to gays. In this case, attending the prom as a couple with one girl wearing a tux seems to be perfectly acceptable behavior to me. Gay couples exist in real life. Women wear suits and tuxedos. Couples go to the prom together. I don't consider that inappropriate behavior. As long as they're doing whatever the hetero couples are doing I don't see the problem.

And that alludes the point I'm trying to make; we ALL have our standards. It's a question of where that boundary is for each and every one of us. Laws originate from many of those boundaries; and many are flawed, due to their "mob-rule" nature, and the likelihood of infriging on individual rights.

 

I may agree with much of your sentiment, but I also acknowledge that I am as (fallibly) human as the next person, and that MY definition of descrimination is no better than others', even if I don't agree with them.

 

That is why, although I may not agree with the school board's actions in this case, I am willing to defer to them, because they are conducting their community's business in (presumably) the way the electorate prefers.

[akirby]

And that alludes the point I'm trying to make; we ALL have our standards. It's a question of where that boundary is for each and every one of us. Laws originate from many of those boundaries; and many are flawed, due to their "mob-rule" nature, and the likelihood of infriging on individual rights.

 

I may agree with much of your sentiment, but I also acknowledge that I am as (fallibly) human as the next person, and that MY definition of descrimination is no better than others', even if I don't agree with them.

 

That is why, although I may not agree with the school board's actions in this case, I am willing to defer to them, because they are conducting their community's business in (presumably) the way the electorate prefers.

 

In terms of a school function:

 

Is it ok to exclude blacks?

Is it ok to exclude muslims?

Is it ok to exclude people in wheelchairs?

Is it ok to exclude women?

 

Where do you draw the line and why?

[RangerM]

In terms of a school function:

 

Is it ok to exclude blacks?

Is it ok to exclude muslims?

Is it ok to exclude people in wheelchairs?

Is it ok to exclude women?

 

Where do you draw the line and why?

You haven't said WHAT function.

[Deanh]

ANd if they would have let her wear a tux, everything still would have been fine, and she would have been happy. It's just a pear of pants people. Women are allowed pants suits. Why not a tux?

if you beleive this is solely on the shoulders of attire you are sadly mistaken....nutshell, if you wish to deviate from the "norm", be different, rock the boat then LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.....if you make that decision, it is yours, and YOURS alone, do NOT blame others if they raise an eyebrow....the "Hey look at me " this young lady attempted failed MISERABLY...WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! did she HAVE to rock the boat? NO, did she HAVE to wear a Tux...NO ...both were HER choices..so live with the reaction....oh, could she...NO!

[Deanh]

The girls have rights just like other people. They aren't slaves.

obviously MORE rights in your book...we dont need no status quo....

[Deanh]

You just don't get it, do you? The school said NO SAME SEX COUPLES. Even if they had both worn a dress they were still not allowed to attend as a couple. Do you not believe that a high school student should be able to attend the prom with their boyfriend or girlfriend? She didn't make a spectacle - she simply asked permission to attend the dance and wear a tux, which women have done for decades. The only spectacle was created ce by the school for having such a discriminatory rule. I keep bringing up the racial issue because from a discrimination standpoint it is exactly the same.

 

There is no difference between the school saying no lesbian couples and a school in the 50's not allowing blacks or interracial couples. Discrimination is discrimination.

 

What would have happened if the school had said yes? Nothing. We wouldn't even be talking about it. Stop trying to act like the school did something heroic. They did something wrong and now all the students are paying for it.

lets face it, the "race" issue has mellowed over time no? This scenario will also...hey SHE made a lifestyle choice...good for her, but I think she is intelligent enough to know WITH that change will come obstacles no? Society is fickle IMO, biut slowly but surely agendas will have the country spiraling downward with CONSTANT demands of acceptance....do we as a society just say YES to EVERY potential volitile subject?...personally constant demands being forced down peoples throats is becoming more and more prevelent, and if someone gets answer they arent willing to accept they Lawyer up.....sickening...and its NOT going to stop.....

[Deanh]

Of course I do. The difference is that I apply standards of acceptable behavior to everyone. I do not apply a different standard to gays. In this case, attending the prom as a couple with one girl wearing a tux seems to be perfectly acceptable behavior to me. Gay couples exist in real life. Women wear suits and tuxedos. Couples go to the prom together. I don't consider that inappropriate behavior. As long as they're doing whatever the hetero couples are doing I don't see the problem.

Kirb, i think theres a little more too it than just that, pretty brutal retaliation by the school just to cancel the whole thing...I have a gut feeling theres more to the story....what TRULY piss's me off is ones inability to accept the schools decision and then attempting to strongarm by lawyering up....it happens WAY too much in todays society....WAY too much...and that blankets ALL similar scenarios not just sexual orientation....

[mettech]

lets face it, the "race" issue has mellowed over time no? This scenario will also...hey SHE made a lifestyle choice...good for her, but I think she is intelligent enough to know WITH that change will come obstacles no? Society is fickle IMO, biut slowly but surely agendas will have the country spiraling downward with CONSTANT demands of acceptance....do we as a society just say YES to EVERY potential volitile subject?...personally constant demands being forced down peoples throats is becoming more and more prevelent, and if someone gets answer they arent willing to accept they Lawyer up.....sickening...and its NOT going to stop.....

Nor should it stop!!!! The people that don't want change are the ones that the status quo benefit the most.

 

America is based on "the Land of the Free", not "The Land of the Majority Rules "... If a persons freedom under the law is threaten, I hope they do take the issue to Court.

 

"...In 2008 and 2009, more than 10,000 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari (request to review a lower-court ruling) were filed with the US Supreme Court each Term, a significant increase over the 8,200 petitions received in 2007.

 

Due to limitations on the amount of work a nine-Justice Court can handle, only 1-2% of these petitions are granted. The Court typically hears between 75-100 cases per year, and sometimes has to carry a case forward until the following year's docket.

 

The Court's Term opens the first Monday in October each year and concludes issuing decisions in late June or early July. In the period between the end of one Term and the beginning of the next, the Justices and their law clerks review cases for consideration during the upcoming Term..."

 

The laws are made by a congress... and the final say-so to determine if that law is constitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court.

[akirby]

You haven't said WHAT function.

 

What difference does it make? Pick one.

[akirby]

if you beleive this is solely on the shoulders of attire you are sadly mistaken....nutshell, if you wish to deviate from the "norm", be different, rock the boat then LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.....if you make that decision, it is yours, and YOURS alone, do NOT blame others if they raise an eyebrow....the "Hey look at me " this young lady attempted failed MISERABLY...WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! did she HAVE to rock the boat? NO, did she HAVE to wear a Tux...NO ...both were HER choices..so live with the reaction....oh, could she...NO!

 

Hey Dean - consider this. What would draw more attention at a prom:

 

Two women dancing together wearing dresses

 

OR

 

A woman dancing with another person wearing a tuxedo just like EVERY OTHER COUPLE at the dance.

 

 

I mean, seriously - you'd have to look pretty hard to see that the person wearing the tuxedo was actually a girl on a dimly lit dance floor.

 

You think she was grandstanding and I think she was just trying to fit in and wearing a tuxedo would have done just that.

[Deanh]

Nor should it stop!!!! The people that don't want change are the ones that the status quo benefit the most.

 

America is based on "the Land of the Free", not "The Land of the Majority Rules "... If a persons freedom under the law is threaten, I hope they do take the issue to Court.

 

"...In 2008 and 2009, more than 10,000 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari (request to review a lower-court ruling) were filed with the US Supreme Court each Term, a significant increase over the 8,200 petitions received in 2007.

 

Due to limitations on the amount of work a nine-Justice Court can handle, only 1-2% of these petitions are granted. The Court typically hears between 75-100 cases per year, and sometimes has to carry a case forward until the following year's docket.

 

The Court's Term opens the first Monday in October each year and concludes issuing decisions in late June or early July. In the period between the end of one Term and the beginning of the next, the Justices and their law clerks review cases for consideration during the upcoming Term..."

 

The laws are made by a congress... and the final say-so to determine if that law is constitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court.

so your answer is NO Rules, NO regulation NO standards, expectations....just leave all the answers to litigation, Congress and the courts....must be nice for those individuals knowing full well everything will eventually defeat to their decisions, great job security for sure.. got news for you...your wish is getting closer to becoming a reality....hmmm, doesnt everyone preach less invasive Govt?...so, my retort...if this is your wish THEN BE HAPPY WITH THE DECISIONS even if they go against you...something I have preached since post 1

[Deanh]

Hey Dean - consider this. What would draw more attention at a prom:

 

Two women dancing together wearing dresses

 

OR

 

A woman dancing with another person wearing a tuxedo just like EVERY OTHER COUPLE at the dance.

 

 

I mean, seriously - you'd have to look pretty hard to see that the person wearing the tuxedo was actually a girl on a dimly lit dance floor.

 

You think she was grandstanding and I think she was just trying to fit in and wearing a tuxedo would have done just that.

not defending the schools actions, but do admire they stood up....FACT...no-one has heard the schools side just the granstanding girls....reason probably is the Schools version would probably open up a huge human rights can of worms.....who knows, but one side of the story makes for bias for sure, i understand your angle completely, but only one side iof the argument is on the table...I think theres MORE too it.......sidebar, there was a VISITOR to New Zealand that took it upon herself to raise her arms in protest to a traditional NZ confection called Eskimo Pies...apparently the POLITICALLY CORRECT term is Inuit ( spelling ) and she found the confection INSULTING to her race ( aside from the fact she was Canadian ) and demanded the name be changed....loved the fact Nestle basically told her to pound sand....the Kiwi public basically told her to go home....and maybe, just maybe Kirb your mentality and mine on subjects such as this will never jibe....I dont tolerate what i perceive as selfishness on an individuals behalf very patiently....then again i deal with the public on a day to day basis....and i DO say NO quite often...so sue me....lol.

[akirby]

so your answer is NO Rules, NO regulation NO standards, expectations....just leave all the answers to litigation, Congress and the courts....must be nice for those individuals knowing full well everything will eventually defeat to their decisions, great job security for sure.. got news for you...your wish is getting closer to becoming a reality....hmmm, doesnt everyone preach less invasive Govt?...so, my retort...if this is your wish THEN BE HAPPY WITH THE DECISIONS even if they go against you...something I have preached since post 1

 

Good grief Dean - chill out! You act like the school did nothing wrong and it's all the girl's fault. Let's examine what the girl did wrong:

 

she wanted to be allowed to attend the school prom with her girlfriend as a couple wearing a tux - just like EVERY OTHER STUDENT was being allowed to do. She wasn't asking for ANY type of special treatment. She wasn't trying to make a scene.

 

The school was the one who cancelled the prom just so they didn't have to allow the girls to attend. They're the ones who started it and they have the ability to end up by reinstating it.

[mettech]

so your answer is NO Rules, NO regulation NO standards, expectations....just leave all the answers to litigation, Congress and the courts....must be nice for those individuals knowing full well everything will eventually defeat to their decisions, great job security for sure.. got news for you...your wish is getting closer to becoming a reality....hmmm, doesnt everyone preach less invasive Govt?...so, my retort...if this is your wish THEN BE HAPPY WITH THE DECISIONS even if they go against you...something I have preached since post 1

 

 

Rules are not laws.

 

State governments and the Fed Government make the laws.

 

The Courts determine if the laws are invasive and if we have to much government.

 

You wrote, :...just leave all the answers to litigation..."

 

No... I'm not saying that. I do expect the person or body that are making local rules to ask, "Does this rule or judgment run counter to the law?" If it does, then strike it from the books.

 

Laws prohibits "public lewd acts". As such, what ever laws that applies to heterosexual couples, should apply to gay couples at any public supported activity equally.

 

Most gays are not asking for special treatment, but they want equal treatment under the laws.

 

 

I will bet anyone, that all of the homo/heterosexual dick sucking, ass fucking and pussy licking in the world that goes on behind closed doors will not stop the U.S. Government from functioning.

[Deanh]

Good grief Dean - chill out! You act like the school did nothing wrong and it's all the girl's fault. Let's examine what the girl did wrong:

 

she wanted to be allowed to attend the school prom with her girlfriend as a couple wearing a tux - just like EVERY OTHER STUDENT was being allowed to do. She wasn't asking for ANY type of special treatment. She wasn't trying to make a scene.

 

The school was the one who cancelled the prom just so they didn't have to allow the girls to attend. They're the ones who started it and they have the ability to end up by reinstating it.

I'm not wound up, youre just missing my point and confirming what I am suggesting...so, EVERY issue should defeat too and be run through attourneys? seems that is what some here are suggesting....simple question....what, if ANY, authority does the SCHOOL have?...none? THEY throw the prom...NOT the individuals...they have the RIGHT to do whatever they want, they decided to cancell ( and beleive me I hope there is MORE too it than dress codes and sexual orientation ) and I say cudos....if I'm throwing a party and I foresee something happening i am not quite comfortable with, or something with ramifications, i would cancell it, screw it, I would even verbally give a reason...so SUE me....you are COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY missing my point.... the SCHOOL has rights too...YOU disagree with their decision, i applaud them standing up for themselves and SCREW the letter of the law, litigation constantly drags this country down....

[Deanh]

Rules are not laws.

 

State governments and the Fed Government make the laws.

 

The Courts determine if the laws are invasive and if we have to much government.

 

You wrote, :...just leave all the answers to litigation..."

 

No... I'm not saying that. I do expect the person or body that are making local rules to ask, "Does this rule or judgment run counter to the law?" If it does, then strike it from the books.

 

Laws prohibits "public lewd acts". As such, what ever laws that applies to heterosexual couples, should apply to gay couples at any public supported activity equally.

 

Most gays are not asking for special treatment, but they want equal treatment under the laws.

 

 

I will bet anyone, that all of the homo/heterosexual dick sucking, ass fucking and pussy licking in the world that goes on behind closed doors will not stop the U.S. Government from functioning.

so lets just let attourneys and Govt make ALL our decisions for us correct? ARRRRRRRG! remove ALL authority from all but a few, there will be hotlines set up for child upbringing, homosexuality, religion, politics, PDA's, media........the alternative is ALL aAmerican citizens study law.....

[akirby]

I'm not wound up, youre just missing my point and confirming what I am suggesting...so, EVERY issue should defeat too and be run through attourneys? seems that is what some here are suggesting....simple question....what, if ANY, authority does the SCHOOL have?...none? THEY throw the prom...NOT the individuals...they have the RIGHT to do whatever they want, they decided to cancell ( and beleive me I hope there is MORE too it than dress codes and sexual orientation ) and I say cudos....if I'm throwing a party and I foresee something happening i am not quite comfortable with, or something with ramifications, i would cancell it, screw it, I would even verbally give a reason...so SUE me....you are COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY missing my point.... the SCHOOL has rights too...YOU disagree with their decision, i applaud them standing up for themselves and SCREW the letter of the law, litigation constantly drags this country down....

 

If you're throwing a private party, invite whoever you want. We're talking about a government entity engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Period. Had this been a private party of some kind then I would have no issue with the decision.

[Deanh]

If you're throwing a private party, invite whoever you want. We're talking about a government entity engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Period. Had this been a private party of some kind then I would have no issue with the decision.

point is the decision should be the right of the individuals throwing the perty...it shouldnt have to always seem to have over seers or "intervention" by a higher authority....like I have repeatedly asked...WHAT authority does the school have?...looks like absolutely NONE, and IMO they are probably ( if found guilty of wrongfull actions ) be held accountable....and as I have also noted I doubt we know the full story...all we are being fed is one side....whilst I do NOT condone the Schools actions I also LAMBAST an individual screaming FOUL at the top of her voice....what if SHE is/ was out of line???? and WE DONT HAVE THE SCHOOLS SIDE DO WE? this tantrum BS when siomeone doesnt get their own way seems to be a damn daily event just FEEDING the media and to me its tiring.....hell, i pulled any similar tantrum crap when i was a kid I got a foot up my ass....hey, was THAt legal...hmmmmm......by constantly appesing these types of actions ( ok, this is baswed on me presuming the student WAS in fact out of line ) the US are setting precedents...it WILL come back to bite....

[RangerM]

In terms of a school function:

 

Is it ok to exclude blacks?

Is it ok to exclude muslims?

Is it ok to exclude people in wheelchairs?

Is it ok to exclude women?

 

Where do you draw the line and why?

You haven't said WHAT function.

What difference does it make? Pick one.

Ok.

 

When I was in elementary school (in Charlotte) we had a school-sponsored overnight trip to Raleigh. There were separate boy's and girl's groups. Were I faced with the same situation today, I'd exclude women from chaperoning the boys, and vice versa for obvious reasons.

 

Along that same line, another trip (in junior high, sometimes referred to as "middle" school) was a weekend camping trip. While this doesn't specifically exclude a person in a wheelchair, it would have because of the impracticality of taking a wheelchair-bound person camping (at least it would have at that time, since we did some hiking to get to the campsite).

 

I can't think of anything that I would specifically exclude blacks from, except that I might show preference for one race or another in a school play, were the character in question a specific (and well-known) member of a specific racial group. (George Washington=White or Crispus Attucks=Black for example)

 

I'm not sure what I would exclude a Muslim from, except that I do not have any tendency to make special considerations for a particular religious group, so a fundamentalist Muslim could consider this exclusionary, even if I wouldn't. I've been out of school for awhile now, so I've never considered it. The closest thing I can think of, is when I was in still in Charlotte in the '80s, there was a child preaching hell-fire and damnation named Duffy Strode. IIRC, he was not doing this during class, but outside on school property before and after. He was being disruptive and was expelled. I don't have a problem with that.

 

That what you had in mind?

[97 F350]

 

A black person can't BE anything but black. A black person can BEHAVE in an appropriate manner or not.

 

What about Michael Jackson???

 

not defending the schools actions, but do admire they stood up....FACT...no-one has heard the schools side just the granstanding girls....reason probably is the Schools version would probably open up a huge human rights can of worms.....who knows, but one side of the story makes for bias for sure, i understand your angle completely, but only one side iof the argument is on the table...I think theres MORE too it.......sidebar, there was a VISITOR to New Zealand that took it upon herself to raise her arms in protest to a traditional NZ confection called Eskimo Pies...apparently the POLITICALLY CORRECT term is Inuit ( spelling ) and she found the confection INSULTING to her race ( aside from the fact she was Canadian ) and demanded the name be changed....loved the fact Nestle basically told her to pound sand....the Kiwi public basically told her to go home....and maybe, just maybe Kirb your mentality and mine on subjects such as this will never jibe....I dont tolerate what i perceive as selfishness on an individuals behalf very patiently....then again i deal with the public on a day to day basis....and i DO say NO quite often...so sue me....lol.

 

I LOVE Eskimo Pies!! :happy feet: