Ramius Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I completely agree with you. But also, it is childish to cancel an entire prom for a poor reason. As for smoking, Florida has it right. Bars (at least most on the Treasure Coast as far as I know) permit smoking as long as nothing more than finger-foods are served. If people are out to eat more than they are going to drink then yeah, smoke outside. However if people are going to get drunk chances are a high percentage want to be able to have a smoke without getting up. The way it's written, the Florida law states that smoking is only allowed in places where food is "incidental" income. So there are a good number of bars that allow smoking. If food is the main draw, then smoking isn't allowed. As for the school, what would they have done if the girl and her girlfriend decided to go "separately" and then simply danced with each other when they got there?
el Tigre Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 As for the school, what would they have done if the girl and her girlfriend decided to go "separately" and then simply danced with each other when they got there? Thats a good point. If it was only about going to the dance she could have handled it quietly,but she wanted this to blow up into a big issue imo.
Astrojanitor Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The way it's written, the Florida law states that smoking is only allowed in places where food is "incidental" income. So there are a good number of bars that allow smoking. If food is the main draw, then smoking isn't allowed. As for the school, what would they have done if the girl and her girlfriend decided to go "separately" and then simply danced with each other when they got there? knowing Mississippi? probably would have turned a firehose on them
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 The way it's written, the Florida law states that smoking is only allowed in places where food is "incidental" income. So there are a good number of bars that allow smoking. If food is the main draw, then smoking isn't allowed. As for the school, what would they have done if the girl and her girlfriend decided to go "separately" and then simply danced with each other when they got there? Is this an intentional metaphor for the gay marriage vs. "civil union" issue? If so, well done.
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 As for the school, what would they have done if the girl and her girlfriend decided to go "separately" and then simply danced with each other when they got there? Kicked them out. Which is not to say they couldn't have gone with a couple of gay male classmates and simply said, in complete honesty, "We're double-dating." But good job by the school, teaching the girls that honesty and forthrightness doesn't pay, and it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.
el Tigre Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Kicked them out. Which is not to say they couldn't have gone with a couple of gay male classmates and simply said, in complete honesty, "We're double-dating." But good job by the school, teaching the girls that honesty and forthrightness doesn't pay, and it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. So I guess the school has no choice but to allow same sex couples to openly attend the prom? I'm guessing that this district in Mississippi is very conservative and opposes such things on religous grounds.Doesn't the school have an obligation to the parents of a majority of the kids to reflect their values on an issue like this? In San Francisco this isn't an issue,in Mississippi it is. I don't think that makes the people there evil.Just my opinion.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 So I guess the school has no choice but to allow same sex couples to openly attend the prom? I'm guessing that this district in Mississippi is very conservative and opposes such things on religous grounds.Doesn't the school have an obligation to the parents of a majority of the kids to reflect their values on an issue like this? In San Francisco this isn't an issue,in Mississippi it is. I don't think that makes the people there evil.Just my opinion. Nope. Social progress always makes people uncomfortable because the weak of mind fear change. Why should the institution pander to those people?
Astrojanitor Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Nope. Social progress always makes people uncomfortable because the weak of mind fear change. Why should the institution pander to those people? Agreed. We live in the future, no longer time to pander to bigots. People feel safe in their bigotry when they are not confronted with that which they fear. You let a couple women dance, realize god doesn't burn the state down, and we all start taking steps forward.
UConn James Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 So I guess the school has no choice but to allow same sex couples to openly attend the prom? I'm guessing that this district in Mississippi is very conservative and opposes such things on religous grounds.Doesn't the school have an obligation to the parents of a majority of the kids to reflect their values on an issue like this? In San Francisco this isn't an issue,in Mississippi it is. I don't think that makes the people there evil.Just my opinion. Don't they have an obligation to the minority, just as well? Do gays and their families not pay taxes that support school functions? Shouldn't matter what the majority of a school board, parents or even a whole town want. It's about doing what's legally and morally right. This is a South that only a couple of years ago featured similar circumstances b/c of inter-racial couples attending proms. Should they all have just gone with similarly skin-toned partners and then danced with who they wanted to dance with, just to appease some bigoted school board members? No, that's wrong. Should it be allowed for the administration to pretend that homosexuals don't exist and that there's something dangerous/disgusting/taboo about them? No, that's wrong. Time to enter the 21st century.
Steely Dan Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 You mean the restaurants, hospitals and bars that are private property and should be able to decide for themselves what legal activities occur on that property without governmental interference? And that the government just outlawed an otherwise legal activity on private property? You sure you really want to go there? Didn't we have a revoultion a few hundred years ago over, among other things, tyrannical government ignoring private property rights of its citizenry? It's not your house or your car or even outdoors that have been ruled out for smoking. It's indoors where second hand smoke is a problem. If the business is open to the public then they have to abide by laws. It's private property but they are required to have handicap accessible toilets, up to code wiring, emergency exits, smoke detectors, abide by dept. of health regulatioins and other laws are necessary for them to operate and offer a safe environment. A private club like a country club can do whatever they want. They can deny anyone they want and they can make it smoking required if they want. If you want to put business' that don't allow smoking out of business then start an identical business next door but make it a very low fee club and make it for smokers. I doubt that business would do very well. What smokers don't get is how disgusting they are. Smoking smells so gross and clings to everything. When we used to go to dinner before the smoking ban I could smell smoke from the non smoking section. If I'm in Wegmans and the only other person in the aisle is at the opposite end I can tell if they are a regular smoker or not. Smoking is leaving the society altogether very slowly and it's a good thing, IMO What's funny is that the most anit-smoking people you'll ever find are former smokers. Nope. Social progress always makes people uncomfortable because the weak of mind fear change. Why should the institution pander to those people?
Recommended Posts