That's exactly what happened. Her request to force the school to hold the prom was denied, i.e., "judge ruled against lesbian teen." The article also said the judge will "still hold a trial." Sounds pretty clear to me. But then I'm not all hung up on source instead of the story.
Bum - you can't deny the fact that the story in NewsMax omitted material facts of the judges decision and if someone only read the story in NewsMax they would be grossly misinformed about the fact of the case. Why not include all the fact and also the pdf of the judges full opinion (like CNN did) so that readers can get the full story.
Do you think the exclusion of the full facts of the decision was intentional or merely an outrageous case of shoddy journalism? From the judges opinion:
According to the clearly established case law, Defendants have violated her First
Amendment rights by denying Constance's request to bring her girlfriend as her date to the prom.The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within th¢ purview of the First Amendment. The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constande's requests and the ACLU's demand letter sent on her behalf. For all of the foregoing Jasons,
the Court finds that Constance's First Amendment rights have been violated and therfore, she has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial likelihood of succcess on the merits with respect to her First Amendment claim.The Court has already found that Defendants' policies against same-sex dates and girls not wearing tuxedos, along with Defendants' action of cancelling the prom, or withdrawing their sponsorship of the prom, have infringed upon Constance's First Amendment rights and therefore, there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm. will occur. The Court finds that Constance has clearly met her burden of persuasion as to the second Canal Authority factor.
