1. Not all discrimination is bad. whipassmt
Well, yes, this is true. We discriminate against murderers, thieves, embezzlers, and individuals who pose a danger to themselves. We abridge their rights and privileges. However, before we do this in the United States, we MUST prove a clear and compelling reason for doing so. The 4th ammendment of the Constitution says that our rights cannot be abrogated without DUE PROCESS OF LAW. With respect to this case, where one of the issues is dress, the Court would likely apply due process according to Tinker v. Des Moine. Dress is considered expression and form of speech. Schools may not regulate the dress/speech unless it constitutes a "material distraction to the educational process." Plaintiffs would assert that a prom is not integral to the school's educational mission. Additionally, the "material distraction" portion of the litmus test would be a huge hurdle for the school to prove. More than likely, the school would fail to provide due process.
2. there is a difference between discriminating against individuals and discriminating against actions, the school discriminated against an action. whipassmt
Civil Rights statutes are based upon addressing the ACTIONS of discrimination, not the underlying prejudices of individuals. The basis of your argument runs along the same lines as similar words that have been spoken in the past: "We have no problem with you being black. You just can't eat here;" "We have no problem with you being a girl. You just can't attend West Point." You argue that it is OK to discriminate against an action. Civil rights law enacted by the federal and state governments says that it is against the law to discriminate against ACTIONS. (That's why we have things like the Fair Employment PRACTICES and Fair Housing PRACTICES commissions, not the Anti-bigots Commission.)
3. Yes gays have equal rights to straights because both gays and straights are people. However, homosexuality does not have the same rights as heterosexuality, since those are abstract things. Heterosexuality has more rights because it contributes to and is necessary for society, whileas homosexuality does not really benefit society (not to say that gay people can't contribute to society, but that their homosexual tendencies are not what contributes to society). whipassmt
LOL, what???? Heterosexuality and homosexuality are concepts. Concepts have no rights. Individuals have rights. Since concepts have no rights, one concept cannot have "more" rights than another.
If you are arguing that heterosexuals contribute more to society than homosexuals through procreation, then, again, LOL, what??? You argue that heterosexuals have more value because we can progogate the species through sexual intercourse. We can make a baby. Well, homosexuals can make a baby through artificial insemination. The same result - one more human being in the world - through different means.
Log in to comment