Hardly the same thing. The blacks didn't use the courts to force the bus companies to change and then whine when the same company closed down rather than fight them on their terms. Theirs was a "bottom up" movement where they excercised their right not to buy from the company that they felt was treating them unfairly, hoping the loss of business would cause the company to reevaluate its priorities. If the student said she wouldn't attend the prom if she couldn't go according to her specifications and got a whole bunch of students to also boycott the prom for the same reason, then this situation would be like the Montgomery Bus Boycott.



yes, and you could just as easily replace "gay" with something vile like "pedophile" or "beastiality" and "cross dressing" with "nudity" or "wearing shirts with slogans that say "All Gays Should Burn in Hell!" It goes both ways. If the slippery slope cannot be used as an argument, then neither can saying something should automatically be allowed because we can liken it back to the Civil Rights movement.

Also, I've said nothing like what you imply. I'm stating the mindset of the people involved as well as arguing against the curious idea that people who protest shouldn't have to accept any fallout from the people who get hurt by their actions...well, at least if they are gay or are fighting for a reason we should agree with. Protesting disrupts. People get caught in the crossfire. These people get pissed. Protestors need to be able to deal with that. Either they accept that the cause is righteous enough that they have to suck it up and deal with the flak or they don't do it. And if the flak happens because they didn't think through all the consequences of their actions, then they deserve that flak as well. Think it through next time.

Real life actions, reactions and consequences don't just suspend themselves because a particular cause is "righteous."