Lame U.S. Constitution Doesn’t Even Protect Sex Parties

By
Photo: Louis Moses/Corbis

Using the First Amendment to excuse questionable behavior is an American rite of passage, but in the case of one Connecticut hotel with an adventurous business model, it didn't pan out as hoped.

The Beverly Hills Suites in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, made a name for itself hosting raucous swingers' parties, including "loud, lurid, alcohol-fueled affairs featuring public sex, fights and, once, a hip-hop concert by renowned performer Ludacris," according to the Washington Post. After one-too-many run-ins with the law, the owner of the Suites attempted to sue Windsor Locks on First Amendment grounds, saying the police directly targeted them for hosting swingers' parties for predominantly black and Hispanic attendees.

Sadly, a judge struck down this argument before it could go to trial:

"The [Hot Couples] swingers’ event involved no stage or performance aspect … and it was not accompanied by any advocacy of a particular lifestyle," the judge wrote. "Thus, it is not protected by the First Amendment for the same reasons that prostitution is not so protected."

If the First Amendment doesn't protect sex parties, what is it even good for?