I think its funny how even though she lost her crown, she became the center of attention...
nobody knows who even won!

Carrie Prejean won Miss USA, but then was stripped of her crown b/c Perez Hilton asked her what her personal view was on gay marriage and she answered she believed marriage should be between one man and one woman. Granted, she said right after that that she didn't mean to offend and wasn't forcing her beliefs on anyone else; but when asked for her opinion, she was going to give it based on her conservative views in this area. She didn't tout harm for individuals who disagreed with her or brow beat others. It's a shame in a country which has free speech as one of its founding principles that this woman should be treated so badly for exercising her constitutional right.

although i dont agree with what she said, i tottaly agree with you.
and also she didnt answer the question properly.

Carrie sued the Miss USA pageant. The owners recently offered her a settlement. Because they knew she'd end up winning? Surely there's a gag order as a result, but perhaps the answer will be leaked at some point.

lol wowwww its stilll going on?
shes obvoiusly doing it juust to make a quick dollar.

You're funny. Were you on that band wagon when gays were suing for equal rights and suing because they believed they had been the victims of defamation? Did you say they were just out to make a quick buck in those instances? No? Hmm...sounds like double standards -- again.

....... how is that double standards when it actualy is true that she tried suing the pajent for a million dollars ??? which would most likely conclude to her trying to make a quick buck...hm..

Oh, of course. I get it. Gays can't possibly be guilty of greed. Perish the thought. Now, a pretty model who just happens to profess conservative beliefs regarding marriage -- well, that automatically makes her suspicious. Makes sense. Nope. Definitely no double standards there.

Tell me how else would one punish a major company when they publically denegrate your personal character with lies? Miss USA countersued. Are you going to say they were just out to make a quick buck too? Look, all this girl did was express her beliefs in a non-confrontational way. Perez Hilton went psycho, and she gets villified. So are you de facto saying P.H. can inflict his hateful diatribes all the day long because he gets the gay pass, but she can't express her views even if she publically said she's not imposing them on anyone else? Miss USA never reprimanded P.H. for his despicable comments, yet tried to crucify Ms. Prejean. Here are the double standards highlighted for you.

actualy if you read up i do state that i think that perez went way too far with it.

Although I think Perez Hilton said some unkind things about her, other than that I have trouble seeing how she's a victim here.

agreeeed.

She exercised her Constitutional right to free speech and didn't verbally impress it on anyone else (she hit the relativism route right after her conservative stance), and she still got proverbally burned at the stake for using that inalienable right. If it had been reversed and Perez had lost his job for speaking out for gay rights, the entire liberal crowd would have been up in arms. But since they love their double standards, they didn't extend that courtesy to Ms. Prejean.

She didn't recieve the Miss USA crown after giving a non-answer to the judges question. She lost her Miss California crown for contract violations. I'm still not seeing the part where she's a victim.

Also, I think one of the reasons she caught so much flak was because she seemed to contradict herself. When she was replying to Perez Hilton's question, she said that she was glad people had a choice. Then she started working with an organization that tries to make sure people don't have a choice.

Contract violations. Can you name specific contract violations? The Miss California people had trouble coming up with valid violations as well. So they gave up the ghost and the case.

Contradictions and choices. Whether or not she started working with an organization that shared her biblical values is an issue separate and apart from the answer she gave to Perez. However, you've brought up another really good point: What do we do when moral views are so diametrically opposed to one another to the point where taking one side means denying "rights" of those who disagree? Again, this illustrates why society is in the moral tailspin it's in today. We base our morals on individual "views" and "opinions". And if all opinions are equal, how do we know who's right and who's wrong?

So can this baby be divided in half? Or do we have to chuck this system of weights and measurements for another?