Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California USA, has sued pageant officials for libel, slander and religious discrimination after they stripped her of her title following comments against gay marriage.
What I never understood about this one was when did the politics of Perez Hilton, become so important that if you disagreed with him you lost your job.
agreed, he really is the lowest-common denominator... whatever his progressive ideals may be, he is so abrasive and self-aggrandizing that he sets his cause back.
I have nothing but support for this girl, and I wish her all the best
These Miss Whatnots surely realize that they are not paid to be controversial. All they are are a pretty smile and lot's of T&A. They are told what to say and if they go beyond that, well, we see what happens.
Suing for what??? Do these bimbos actually believe their "title" means something in the real world?? Gimmie a break. I dunno what's sadder, the contestants or the drooling, pathetic sorts that watch this dreck and help to perpetuate bimboism.
"leewgrant" said These Miss Whatnots surely realize that they are not paid to be controversial. All they are are a pretty smile and lot's of T&A. They are told what to say and if they go beyond that, well, we see what happens.
She's not controversial. She respectfully supported traditional values. The controversy there is the intolerant runt and his self hating pack of fools.
Uh, she was fired not for holding a retrograde view, but rather for immediately afterwards championing political causes and being used as a fundraiser for said political causes, all of which is against the rules for a winner.
"xerxes" said Uh, she was fired not for holding a retrograde view, but rather for immediately afterwards championing political causes and being used as a fundraiser for said political causes, all of which is against the rules for a winner.
hardly a "retrograde" view; traditionalist perhaps, but it's not an uncommon view
"xerxes" said Uh, she was fired not for holding a retrograde view, but rather for immediately afterwards championing political causes and being used as a fundraiser for said political causes, all of which is against the rules for a winner.
Actually, isn't the claim something like she failed to meet her contractual obligations? She of course denies it. Should be an interesting court case. I hope she gets like a gazillion bucks.
"ridenrain" said These Miss Whatnots surely realize that they are not paid to be controversial. All they are are a pretty smile and lot's of T&A. They are told what to say and if they go beyond that, well, we see what happens.
She's not controversial. She respectfully supported traditional values.
That just so happen to denigrate and actively seek to limit the rights of a group of people. Those types of "values" have no place in today's (supposedly progressive) society.
"Arctic_Menace" said This woman made rather rude remarks about a group of people. And she's from California. I ahve no support for this stupic, valley-girl.
What rude remarks were those? She stated that she believes that marriage is and should remain, between a man and a woman. That is how the world has operated for millenia, it's never even been questioned until recently, and the idea of gay marriage certainly isn't universally accepted. I am personally for gay civil-unions with equal status legally, but the term marriage is for a man and a woman. That is not an attack on anyone's rights, it's a continuation of thousands of years of tradition, both religious and civil.
"Arctic_Menace" said That just so happen to denigrate and actively seek to limit the rights of a group of people. Those types of "values" have no place in today's (supposedly progressive) society.
They asked what she thought and she told them. Just because you don't like her answer dosen't make it wrong. So in other words, she should just shut up. Don't go outside the rarrative, stay with the politically correct things they tell you to say.
I have nothing but support for this girl, and I wish her all the best
She should sue them, good for her.
BTW Carrie, if you need a hug I'm there for you!
These Miss Whatnots surely realize that they are not paid to be controversial. All they are are a pretty smile and lot's of T&A. They are told what to say and if they go beyond that, well, we see what happens.
She's not controversial. She respectfully supported traditional values.
The controversy there is the intolerant runt and his self hating pack of fools.
Uh, she was fired not for holding a retrograde view, but rather for immediately afterwards championing political causes and being used as a fundraiser for said political causes, all of which is against the rules for a winner.
hardly a "retrograde" view; traditionalist perhaps, but it's not an uncommon view
Uh, she was fired not for holding a retrograde view, but rather for immediately afterwards championing political causes and being used as a fundraiser for said political causes, all of which is against the rules for a winner.
Actually, isn't the claim something like she failed to meet her contractual obligations? She of course denies it. Should be an interesting court case. I hope she gets like a gazillion bucks.
These Miss Whatnots surely realize that they are not paid to be controversial. All they are are a pretty smile and lot's of T&A. They are told what to say and if they go beyond that, well, we see what happens.
She's not controversial. She respectfully supported traditional values.
That just so happen to denigrate and actively seek to limit the rights of a group of people. Those types of "values" have no place in today's (supposedly progressive) society.
This woman made rather rude remarks about a group of people. And she's from California. I ahve no support for this stupic, valley-girl.
What rude remarks were those? She stated that she believes that marriage is and should remain, between a man and a woman. That is how the world has operated for millenia, it's never even been questioned until recently, and the idea of gay marriage certainly isn't universally accepted.
I am personally for gay civil-unions with equal status legally, but the term marriage is for a man and a woman.
That is not an attack on anyone's rights, it's a continuation of thousands of years of tradition, both religious and civil.
That just so happen to denigrate and actively seek to limit the rights of a group of people. Those types of "values" have no place in today's (supposedly progressive) society.
They asked what she thought and she told them. Just because you don't like her answer dosen't make it wrong.
So in other words, she should just shut up. Don't go outside the rarrative, stay with the politically correct things they tell you to say.