Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Carrie Sues

Timothy Kincaid

August 31st, 2009

Carrie Prejean is missing the spotlight. She’s not getting modeling jobs and the press isn’t hanging breathlessly to her every word (and nudie pic).

And she just doesn’t understand why businesses and other sponsors wouldn’t want her face and name attached to their profitability. It must be the fault of the Miss California pageant!!

So she’s suing. (NBC San Diego)

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. She is seeking unspecified damages.

Well, yeah, her religious belief that she doesn’t have to do the job of Miss California or keep in contact with the organization, perhaps.

“Over the past two months, we have worked hard to provide overwhelming evidence that Carrie Prejean did not violate her contract with Miss California USA and did not deserve to have her title revoked by Keith Lewis,” said attorney Charles S. LiMandri*, who is representing Prejean. “We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage.”

Oddly enough, on some level he’s right. It was her unauthorized campaigning for National Organization for Marriage, a political organization that “supports traditional marriage”, that cost Carrie her job. If she had stayed in the state and cut ribbons and supported politically neutral endeavors, she’d still be Miss California today.

But Carrie’s a bit too dim to realize that Miss California doesn’t get to be a political advocate for a controversial cause. Most pageants frown on pissing off half of the public. And those who handled her were only interested in advancing their anti-gay advocacy and thought she was the perfect tool.

——————

* if LiMandri’s name sounds familiar, it should. This is the same attorney that hosted a fundraiser for Proposition 8, who represented the San Diego firefighters who were “sexually harassed” by things like “look at the big firemen” at the gay pride parade, and who tried to encourage county clerks to break the law last summer when marriage was legal.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Lindoro Almaviva
August 31st, 2009 | LINK

I’m gonna hate myself for this, BUT:

I will say that Miss CA Inc. is in part responsible for Carries woes. Allow me to explain.

Can anyone tell me of ANY CA resident who was NOT asked what their opinion was on the marriage issue? I’m sorry, but we all know how as soon as marriage took center stage (specifically after the debacle in CA), anyone who said they were CA natives were asked what they thought on marriage equality.

Given this fact, Miss CA should’ve expected to have that question thrown at her, either by another contestant(So what you think about all this marriage bullshit? Wasn’t it awful what happened in CA?), a handler or a judge (big surprise coming from Perez /sarcasm).

The people in Miss CA Inc should have prepared her for that eventuality. The fact that she screwed that one and was unprepared for the hatred that was thrown at her afterwards tells me that her handlers didn’t do a thorough job on her preparation. If they had, they would have negotiated answer with her, or would have coached her on the finer points of Beauty Queen 101: How to handle a potentially charging question, specially when your views could be offensive and/or unpopular.

Now, this whole thing about her playing the victim card, well, she’ll learn fast enough that it gets old really fast.

Burr
August 31st, 2009 | LINK

I honestly couldn’t have cared less about what she said at the actual Miss USA pageant. If anything she deserved to lose because it was poorly worded (and because she was losing anyway before that round), not because of the opinion expressed.

My problem was the aftermath with the NOM campaigning and other controversial appearances that were clearly a breach of contract. She has no case.

Richard W. Fitch
August 31st, 2009 | LINK

What a waste of time. Just throw her a roll of quarters so she’s able to make change on her favorite street corner.

Emily K
August 31st, 2009 | LINK

She violated her contract. Then she was given a chance by The Donald himself to get back on track. She violated her contract again anyway.

Seems fairly cut and dry but I’m sure it won’t prevent a waste of a judge’s time from happening as a result anyway.

GreenEyedLilo
August 31st, 2009 | LINK

Oh, to hell with her, no pun intended. Do any of us know the name of the current Miss California? Reigning Miss USA? Miss Universe?

Yeah, I thought not. I can slap Perez Hilton right now for helping to make this woman much more famous than she ever deserved.

One good thing about this recession is that now, maybe you have to do more than whip up fear against people who aren’t hurting anyone and/or look good in a bikini to keep yourself living comfortably and in the public eye.

mwdc
August 31st, 2009 | LINK

“And those who handled her were only interested in advancing their anti-gay advocacy and thought she was the perfect tool.”

She’s a perfect tool, all right.

Christopher Waldrop
September 1st, 2009 | LINK

I can slap Perez Hilton right now for helping to make this woman much more famous than she ever deserved.

Darn it, I knew someone would beat me to it. As has been noted repeatedly, Prejean didn’t even answer the question she was asked, but it also seems to have been a question designed to create controversy. Regardless of Prejean’s answer there was going to be an outcry over the question even being asked.

Ben in Oakland
September 1st, 2009 | LINK

She really may not want to open the can o’ worms known as religious discirmination.

Chris McCoy
September 1st, 2009 | LINK

I’m actually more interested now. I would love for this to go all the way to the SCOTUS.

The 2nd Amendment got it’s hey day in court, why not the 1st?

People need to learn that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” does not mean “I can say whatever I want, and then claim religious persecution when it impacts me financially.”

Jason D
September 1st, 2009 | LINK

Lindoro,
just as a point of clarity, the judges don’t ask surprise questions of the contestants. The judge’s questions are written out in advance and all questions are given to the contestants in advance so that they can formulate answers ahead of time — rather than on the spot. Carrie even admitted as much by basically saying she was hoping not to get “that” question.

She was well aware that question was one of the possibilities. So she either failed to craft an articulate response, even with preparation, or she flubbed her own lines — neither one of which is good for someone who’s trying to get a job as a spokesperson.

CLS
September 1st, 2009 | LINK

A media whore is a media whore but this one knows what she is doing. This has nothing to do with the law suit and everything to do with the new antigay book she has coming out. I believe the release date is November and a law suit filed in September will garner publicity that she will use to take to the bank — literally.

She was also sure to sue people who wouldn’t have the resources to fight back without their boss helping them, while not suing the boss who could pay for the best attorneys to smack her down.

Richard W. Fitch
September 1st, 2009 | LINK

@CLS – I’d wager you are right on ALL counts! I’d been waiting to see how they planned to sensationalize the release of her book. Something also tells me The Donald may have had enough of Ms. Prejean by now that he will be more than happy to kick in the bucks it may take to defend his people and his enterprise. First off, though, is the question: Will the judge hear the case or make the paperwork into nice little airplanes???

PnPhD | Former Miss California, a San Diegan, Sues Pageant For Religious Discrimination
September 2nd, 2009 | LINK

[…] of her contract. She refused to show up for official events, for instance, because she was too busy helping out the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an anti-gay PAC. She’s claiming she was fired […]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.