Former Miss California USA Suing Pageant for Religious Discrimination (and Other Matters):
Religion Clause reports, and links to the complaint:
Former Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, yesterday filed a lawsuit in a California state court against Miss California pageant officials accusing them of religious discrimination, as well as defamation, disclosure of private medical facts and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Prejean's title was taken away in June 2009, allegedly for breach of contract.... [Prejean] alleges in part that defendants ... [conspired] to have Prejean dismissed as Miss California USA because she insisted on publicly expressing her religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage.
Should be interesting...
It will be interesting to see the response of conservatives. There are many who whine about frivolous lawsuits, and they often disparage those who are hurt, and then run for the nearest lawyer. Will they condemn her reliance on a lawsuit, even if they support her general argument that she was punished for her moral/spiritual/religious views? Will they condemn the lawyer (law firm) who is representing her, as yet another example of lawsuits being what's wrong with America?
AFAIK, contractual waivers are not sufficient to override anti-discrimination laws, which are public policy. No court would enforce a contractual waiver which permitted, for example, racial discrimination.
Worth mentioning again that there's not a lot of daylight between Obama's position and Prejean's. The former is subject to less venom on the subject because his supporters assume he's lying (which, to be fair, is generally a safe assumption).
Santa Monica is correct, also. If Prejean had come out with ANY public statement that drew unflattering attention to the pageant, she could be tossed out. She could have gone on an anti-immigration tirade and gotten the same result. It has nothing to do with the substance of what she said and everything to do with her bringing embarrassing negative publicity onto the pageant. Pageants are already under fire and losing audience share every year, the last thing they want is a controversial winner.
Haven't spent much time in Kansas, have you?
The stereotype of Kansas is laughably wrong.
Kansas has a few wing-nuts who get national publicity because they are the antithesis of the politically correct world, as opposed to the many loons in San Francisco that one rarely hears about.
Furthermore, the mirror image of the treatment that Prejean got would only come from the most fringy of Christians (which, sadly, Kansas has in a small but nasty group in Topeka).
More important, I hope people everywhere are respectful of her efforts to vindicate the honesty she exhibited in her answer concerning "opposite marriage" instead of mentioning her bleached hair, fake breasts and misleading written disclosures omitting unclothed photography sessions.
That's interesting, because she posed for those pictures FIVE YEARS AGO and didn't fail to "keep a contract," they argued that she breached her current contract by posing in photos "partially nude" when she was seventeen years old--five years ago.
Link? (Hi resolution please)
Have you seen the contract? I'd be surprised if it didn't contain a morals clause that covers past behavior.
The contract probably does cover past behavior. But the point is that she entered into a contract that she knew, or should have known, that she could not perform from the beginning. It's not like she entered into an agreement and then went back on that agreement. The pictures predate the contract.
Unless I misunderstand you completely and you agree she breached the contract, I don't get your point. What's the significance of the nudity predating the contract if, as you acknowledge, "[t]he contract probably does cover past behavior"? You can't mean she couldn't have breached something "she knew, or should have known, that she could not perform from the beginning." That just means she was in breach the moment she signed it. Which is exactly what I assume happened.
I don't think anyone questioned her honesty, just her judgment -- you just don't insult gay men and then think they are going to happily do her hair and make-up.
Apparently, she is going to milk the victimhood argument to stretch her 15 minutes to 17, possibly 18, minutes.
This is the so-called "nude" photo in question. As one can plainly see the photo while slightly racy (by today's standards) is hardly pornographic. If you know of another photo then provide the link and I will check it out.
How is upholding traditional notion of marriage insulting gay men? Her position is the majority position in the US, so she is well within the mainstream. As for doing her hair and makeup, there are lots of men who would be glad to do it. BTW I know gay men who are steadfastly against gay marriage.
Is this comment tongue-in-cheek? Can you really not see how it might be insulting to be told, "I think it's morally wrong for you to be allowed to marry the person you love." I get that you may agree with that perspective. That's fine. But is it possible that you can't even see the potential insult. That's surprising.
Although I find the analogy to mixed-race marriages usually to be inexact, I think it does work here. Sixty years ago, if I said that I thought that blacks and whites (for example) should not be allowed to marry each other, I might have been within the mainstream. In some parts of the country, I probably would have been in the strong majority. But even if were in the most backwards southern county when I made such a statement, I still would know for sure that some people *might* be offended.
By the way; I thought that she had been let go due to post-competition breaches (not showing up for required appearances, etc.). But, given that my exposure (heh) to this topic has been limited to the posts here, plus the usual expected fawning (Fox New) and antagonistic (MSNBC) "reporting," I am sure I am missing most of the relevant facts
Yet this same pageant can have a controversial judge who has been brought up on charges of copyright infringement and defamation. Wikipedia has a whole section on the various charges filed against him and the fight he provoked with Will.I.Am. Right now he's reported to still be in hot water for claiming that Michael Jackson's death was a publicity stunt.
I am presuming that her lawyer has seen the contract and believes so, but ...
A. Zarkov:
Is her statement defensible because it was an "unpopular view" or because it is "the majority position in the US"? Seems like it should be one or the other, not both. (If I remember correctly, the anti-gay marriage position actually won the California election.)
How are people on the coasts so oblivious? You have no understanding of Kansas whatsoever (you have no understanding of the state of California, for that matter). Prejean was tone-deaf enough to state views which are shared by the majority of citizens of California, much less the citizens of Kansas, the country as a whole, the Democratic and Republican parties, and the Democratic president (assuming he is being honest when he talks about it-a weak assumption, to be sure).
Apparently, when answering the question, Prejean should have not answered honestly, have known to ignore the views of the majority of viewers of the pageant, and expressed political viewpoints with the goal of pleasing the makeup crew.
One aspect of the controversy that seems never to be mentioned. Even if you actually value beauty pageants to begin with (which I find very difficult to understand), if a beauty pageant has someone like Perez Hilton in a position of authority, it has jumped the shark.
sk
Considering the person who asked her this question which sparked the controversy was only hosting because he's stretched his 15 minutes to 17, possibly 18, minutes, I think you can kinda shut the hell up, Randy.
She's more of a victim than Perez Hilton was when he got socked in the face for running his mouth, and he's probably gotten more sympathy than she has.
santa monica
I don't believe in "potential insults". If someone says or does something with the intent on insulting you, that's one thing. But if your feelings just happen to get hurt because you're over-sensitive and self-entitled, I say tough s---. That's just how I feel generally, though, because I don't buy into the expressed or implied notion that someone believing marriage is between one man and one woman can ever be insulting. The state the girl was representing just had a huge campaign to decide this argument, and the people agreed with her. But because the media is in the tank for the far-left, she might as well be a leper? Oh, please.
It's just like atheists who try and tell me someone espousing Christian views is "offensive" because they don't believe in God. Someone being antagonistic is one thing, but this idea that there is intrinsic offensiveness in a view that's so commonplace and has nothing to do with you is just PC-liberal talk.
Mr. Gibson - any chance you practice law with a Helena Kobrin?
I'm sure she is grateful and litigous. How else is she supposed to extend her 15 seconds of fame? If she plays this right, maybe they'll make her a special reporter on Fox &Friends, or even on the Today Show...
That is exactly my view. Prejean is crying like a victim. She is taking the precise stance that conservatives decry in people who do not have their sympathies. If she really failed to make scheduled appearances and was let go for that reason, then she is simply trying to shift the blame and is using religion as an excuse. She isn't man enough (woman enough doesn't seem right and "man" can be generic) to accept her responsibility.
Does she have a right to try to convince a trier of fact that the failure-to-show defense is a pretext for discrimination? Of course. She has the same right to try to prove her case that other people have who seek to show a causal connection between an adverse employment action and protected status or conduct. To put it another way, other people who make discrimination claims that conservatives decry have the same right to try to establish them that Prejean is exercising.
One of the more bizzare things I've done was to help help sponsor a friend in a Mrs.(sic) California pagent. She insisted I attend the finals. It turns out that you can keep entering it year to year. It was obvious who had done it before, and what the "correct" answers to the questions were. She told me later that, having talked to other contestents, she learned that some of these women had been entering these pagents since, often before, high school. They are, in a very real sense, closer to professional politicians than models. The trick is to know what the judges want to hear. My friend was truly an amateur and had no chance. I was proud of her that she got as far as she did.
Well sure, in Europe. :)
No, of course not. You just believe in real insults, as in " I think you can kinda shut the hell up, Randy." Being the good Christian, I will simply turn the other cheek. Cheers!
In more substantive news, the attorney who is representing Miss Prejean in this lawsuit is none other than Charles LiMandri, counsel for the National Organization for Marriage, and has written a position paper for the NOM entitled The Impact on Same Sex Marriage on Religious Freedom. An analysis and link to his paper can be found here.
Anti-abortionism is hardly a fringe or radical view.
Creationism occasionally succeeds, for a short time, in Kansas because a few people focus on it and everyone else ignores it until it makes the headlines. Then it is repealed.
Tell me, is Creationism required to be part of school curriculum in Kansas? If not, why not, given your characterization?
Zarkov: "BTW I know gay men who are steadfastly against gay marriage."
I know a few straights who are steadfastly against marriage, too. But I don't presume that they speak for all straight people. In fact, I don't think their views on marriage of any concern whatsoever. So should you.
Having gone to college in Lawrence, I can attest to the fact that there are, indeed, hot beds of liberalism in Kansas - especially Lawrence.
Stereotyping of Kansas is sort of pathetic and tiring, because it's, well, wrong.
You make it sound as if Creationism somehow slips quietly in the backdoor, catching the great majority of Kansans by surprise. But that ignores the fact that there first must be in place a Board of Education packed with Christian Fundamentalist types who make no secret of their thinking before they get on the board.
Huh? I'm afraid I don't understand. What "characterization"?
You make it sound as if Creationism somehow slips quietly in the backdoor, catching the great majority of Kansans by surprise. But that ignores the fact that there first must be in place a Board of Education packed with Christian Fundamentalist types who make no secret of their thinking before they get on the board.
Huh? I'm afraid I don't understand. What "characterization"?
Me telling you to kinda shut the hell up is pretty tame...for me.
OK?
But since none of us know the details of her contract, but we do have plenty of evidence of the media giving her a hard time over her response, it seems, outside looking in, that was more political than procedure. I'd agree that she should just let it go, but if she was fired just because she said she's against gay marriage, and that gets people's panties in a twist because she's not as "progressive" as they are (and really, I'm betting it's a combination of both), I think she ought to take the issue to court.
Personally, I couldn't care much less what her views of SSM are. I don't care if she opposes it. However her defence of the photos was fundamentally dishonest as she claimed that they were taken without her knowledge (not like she is looking at the camera or anything).
So I don't blame her for her honesty. I blame her for her dishonesty.
The problem though is that I don't find her defence of the topless photos very compelling and therefore don't find her credible.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.