Justice Scalia's worst nightmare

I always love it when important legal issues are discussed in very bizarre cases. A swingers club run on the weekends in a home outside of Dallas is causing a controversy over the reach of local government's police power. The club is so popular that it is apparently pretty loud and the streets around the house become crowded. Needless to say, their neighbors are not pleased. Some bloggers even joked that local Baptists were trying to shut the swinger parties down because they might lead to dancing. Hehehe.

So, the city council banned the gatherings from taking place by regulating the club as a business. The couple that organizes the parties collects voluntary donations to fund the parties, and the city is using this as the basis for the ban. But the couple counters that they have a legitimate claim to privacy. According to Newsweek:

The U.S. Supreme Court implied in a 1990 case involving the city of Dallas and sex businesses that commercial sexual activity does not constitute expression under the First Amendment. But Klein, the Cherry Pit's attorney, says Trulock and Norris's fight to protect the swinging lifestyle in the privacy of their own home is supported by a more recent Supreme Court decision, the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case that struck down Texas's sodomy law. "That case is the seminal case about regulating private conduct," Klein says. "Any kind of private activity, [even] wearing pink socks in your home."

Pink socks? Is that part of the homosexual agenda? But seriously though, pink socks don't cause a public nuisance. This club does. I don't think this club is a business because the donations are purely voluntary and the club doesn't turn a profit. But the city council could use other grounds to regulate it. Pass a stronger noise ordinance. Require a resident parking pass to park on the street.

The couple is suing to get an injunction placed on the city ordinance. I can't wait for the judge's ruling. The findings section will be quite stimulating...