Ex-Miss California Carrie Prejean Sues

Ex-Miss California Carrie Prejean Sues

There are 20 comments on the KNSD-TV story from Aug 31, 2009, titled Ex-Miss California Carrie Prejean Sues. In it, KNSD-TV reports that:

Carrie Prejean, the beauty queen who was stripped of her Miss California crown in June, sued two Miss USA California officials on Monday, claiming that she lost her crown solely for her religious beliefs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KNSD-TV.

Since: Dec 06

Plainfield, IL

#1 Aug 31, 2009
Carrie Prejean is a whining bigot. All she is trying to do is extend her 15 minutes of fame....which already was 15 minutes too long.

Daniel P from Long Island

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#2 Aug 31, 2009
THEAprof wrote:
Carrie Prejean is a whining bigot. All she is trying to do is extend her 15 minutes of fame....which already was 15 minutes too long.
I agree. When is she giving back those fake boobs they gave here ?

I guess she thought being one herself wasn't enough.

Let her go live with that has-been Anita Bryant.

Methinks Miss Prelevis needs a cougar.

“Just my opinion”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#4 Aug 31, 2009
Now shes throwing out the religion card , when she has gone around the nation nude. Another Xian hypocrite.

“BEWARE I BITE”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Aug 31, 2009
You have got to be kidding.. LMAO..

Typical fake boob bible thumping sunday morning pew warming hypocrite!

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#6 Aug 31, 2009
Apparently she's not even enough smart enough to be a Fox News babe, and they scrape the bottom of the silicone and saline enhanced barrel as it is.
Rose

Panorama City, CA

#7 Aug 31, 2009
Boo hoo.
BS Detector

Oxnard, CA

#8 Aug 31, 2009
So it's okay to sue about wanting prop 8 defeated and declared invalid becasue of a perceived injustice, but it's not okay for Prejean to sue for what she sees as an injuustice based on what she believes?

Does anybody see the obvious inconsistency (and hypocrisy) here?

Sure, ridicule her for being a beauty queen with fake boobs (which, one guesses she paid for), but it's not okay to point out other queens for their own offensive behavior and hate?

Very interesting. But stupid.(With apologies and a tip of the helmet to Laugh In's Arte Johgnson.)

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#9 Aug 31, 2009
BS Detector wrote:
So it's okay to sue about wanting prop 8 defeated and declared invalid becasue of a perceived injustice, but it's not okay for Prejean to sue for what she sees as an injuustice based on what she believes?
Does anybody see the obvious inconsistency (and hypocrisy) here?
Sure, ridicule her for being a beauty queen with fake boobs (which, one guesses she paid for), but it's not okay to point out other queens for their own offensive behavior and hate?
Very interesting. But stupid.(With apologies and a tip of the helmet to Laugh In's Arte Johgnson.)
Where have you been? She didn't pay for her boobs. I think it's a riot some bimbo with fake boobs wants to get all moralistic when it comes to the LGBT community.

Speaking of bimbo's - at my local beach I hear people drop the word "fag" into their conversations every time I head out there but lately it's only been coming from the women. For some reason the men have stopped dropping that word.
Eaglefan9727

Ware, MA

#10 Aug 31, 2009
Good for her when it comes to this issue about suing. She has every right to sue for how she was treated for speaking her opinion.

I also agree with the statement that BS detector made. I guess it's only OK with the gay community suing, Because of prop 22 and prop 8 issues, But it's not OK for Prejean to sue for what she sees as an injuustice based on what she believes?

Most people who are for same sex marriage are just plain hypocrites and that is a FACT.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#11 Aug 31, 2009
Eaglefan9727 wrote:
Good for her when it comes to this issue about suing. She has every right to sue for how she was treated for speaking her opinion.
I also agree with the statement that BS detector made. I guess it's only OK with the gay community suing, Because of prop 22 and prop 8 issues, But it's not OK for Prejean to sue for what she sees as an injuustice based on what she believes?
Most people who are for same sex marriage are just plain hypocrites and that is a FACT.
Yup, there's just no difference, at all, between marriage rights and a beauty queen doing the job she was hired for. Get real. Next we'll hear you tell us if gays get the right to marry each other then we all better watch out because Fido is next on the list. Sure Ms. Plastic had a right to free speech but in case you're too clueless to realize her contract was that of a spokesperson for her employer.
Eaglefan9727

Ware, MA

#12 Aug 31, 2009
McMike wrote:
Yup, there's just no difference, at all, between marriage rights and a beauty queen doing the job she was hired for. Get real. Next we'll hear you tell us if gays get the right to marry each other then we all better watch out because Fido is next on the list. Sure Ms. Plastic had a right to free speech but in case you're too clueless to realize her contract was that of a spokesperson for her employer.
You are the one that is clueless. She was fired for speaking her opinion and not for filling her contract like they state it was.

BTW, If SSM was a right which it isnt. DOMA would not be in place, So I guess your theory on civil rights when it comes to SSM just got blown out of the water. Better luck playing the game next time

“That's Mama Luigi to you too”

Since: Jun 08

Orange County,CA

#13 Aug 31, 2009
Eaglefan9727 wrote:
<quoted text>

BTW, If SSM was a right which it isnt. D
Why? Because A majority say so. A majority also said blacks should remain slaves. A majority said women shouldn't vote. A majority said black and whites shouldn't marry. So what's your point?

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#14 Aug 31, 2009
Eaglefan9727 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that is clueless. She was fired for speaking her opinion and not for filling her contract like they state it was.
BTW, If SSM was a right which it isnt. DOMA would not be in place, So I guess your theory on civil rights when it comes to SSM just got blown out of the water. Better luck playing the game next time
Even you can't be too clueless to realize same-sex marriage is coming whether you like it or not. Our country was set-up so the rights of a minority could not be put up to a vote by the majority. You not only need to go back to grade school to figure out basic sentence structure but to learn the history of civil rights in our country and how the majority was always staunchly opposed to it.

btw, I don't need "luck" on my side when I have the US Constitution in my hand in this game you think we're playing.
BS Detector

Oxnard, CA

#15 Aug 31, 2009
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been? She didn't pay for her boobs. I think it's a riot some bimbo with fake boobs wants to get all moralistic when it comes to the LGBT community.
Speaking of bimbo's - at my local beach I hear people drop the word " **** " into their conversations every time I head out there but lately it's only been coming from the women. For some reason the men have stopped dropping that word.
I don't know what "that word" is so it's difficult to comment.

And so she didn't pay for her own boobs. No big deal.

But if you'd prefer to get all bent (pardon the expression) out of shape over one bimbo, I invite you to get the aforementioned bent.(Out of shape, that is.)

And she didn't get all that moralistic to start. Perez Hilton blindsided here and she answered honestly. Phuque Hilton. And anybody who supports his BS.

But do let the one blonde bimbo get to you. That makes them (whoever you think is against you) win.

“That's Mama Luigi to you too”

Since: Jun 08

Orange County,CA

#16 Aug 31, 2009
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
Even you can't be too clueless to realize same-sex marriage is coming whether you like it or not. Our country was set-up so the rights of a minority could not be put up to a vote by the majority. You not only need to go back to grade school to figure out basic sentence structure but to learn the history of civil rights in our country and how the majority was always staunchly opposed to it.
btw, I don't need "luck" on my side when I have the US Constitution in my hand in this game you think we're playing.
And sad part is he and his ilk know that hence the desperation.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#17 Sep 1, 2009
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "that word" is so it's difficult to comment.
And so she didn't pay for her own boobs. No big deal.
But if you'd prefer to get all bent (pardon the expression) out of shape over one bimbo, I invite you to get the aforementioned bent.(Out of shape, that is.)
And she didn't get all that moralistic to start. Perez Hilton blindsided here and she answered honestly. Phuque Hilton. And anybody who supports his BS.
But do let the one blonde bimbo get to you. That makes them (whoever you think is against you) win.
Winning? Hardly. Guess you've been out to lunch or you would've noticed support for LGBT rights grows every day. Prejean had every right to speak her mind but in doing so she violated her contract since she was a SPOKESMAN. If you're under a contract to be a spokesman and you're not speaking as your contract states then you're in violation of you're contract. She used her crown as a personal platform and Trump had every legal right to fire her.
Eaglefan9727

Ware, MA

#18 Sep 1, 2009
Shadow Dragon wrote:
Why? Because A majority say so. A majority also said blacks should remain slaves. A majority said women shouldn't vote. A majority said black and whites shouldn't marry. So what's your point?
How many times will you bring up interracial marriage? Interracial marriage and SSM are two total opposites and you cant compare the two.
McMike wrote:
I don't need "luck" on my side when I have the US Constitution in my hand in this game you think we're playing.
The US Constitution isnt going to give you SSM, So nice try on that.
BS Detector

Oxnard, CA

#19 Sep 1, 2009
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
Winning? Hardly. Guess you've been out to lunch or you would've noticed support for LGBT rights grows every day. Prejean had every right to speak her mind but in doing so she violated her contract since she was a SPOKESMAN. If you're under a contract to be a spokesman and you're not speaking as your contract states then you're in violation of you're contract. She used her crown as a personal platform and Trump had every legal right to fire her.
What a shock! You guess wrong!

I never said Trump had no right to fire her, did I? No. And if she violated her contract, once again, grounds.

And you can admire Perez Hilton's blindsiding her and being a hateful bi*t*ch all you want if you so choose. Such is your right. And he got his ass kicked on an unrelated matter. Surely a coincidence considering his warm personality. I feel really, really bad about that and would feel even worse if it were to happen again. Let's see if he calls it a hate crime and tries to make a buck out of it... further damaging the gay community.

And the bimbo with the fake boobs still wins since you're all bent out of shape about her. Congratulations. But if you'd rather get all bent out of shape by the bimbo, she (and those who support her) win. Or where have *you* been out to lunch? And since you demonstrably have no clue about my position on anything, that out to lunch thing really does apply to you.

Again, congratulations.

“That's Mama Luigi to you too”

Since: Jun 08

Orange County,CA

#20 Sep 1, 2009
Eaglefan9727 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times will you bring up interracial marriage? Interracial marriage and SSM are two total opposites and you cant compare the two.
<quoted text>
The US Constitution isnt going to give you SSM, So nice try on that.
Read the 14th amendment.

“That's Mama Luigi to you too”

Since: Jun 08

Orange County,CA

#21 Sep 1, 2009
Here's The 14th Amendment If you're to lazy to look it up.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rancho Santa Fe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
black 19 hr yup522 1
Who is the plug for green in Oceanside? Wed anonymous247 1
Is oceanside a good place to live? (Jan '16) Tue Anonymous 3
Corinne Hogg and her VA disability - What's wro... (Sep '15) Jul 25 Annonymous 11
2003 Chevy Trailblazer-CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND R... (Dec '11) Jul 25 Yvette 285
Review: Jim's Mobile RV Repair (Jun '15) Jul 22 justtryingtostaya... 12
News Wally the dead whale finally laid to rest in So... Jul 22 Ed Muntin 5

Rancho Santa Fe Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rancho Santa Fe Mortgages