We keep throwing these words around like "prom." A "prom" is a high school sanctioned and run event to celebrate the graduating class. What happened here is that the original prom was going to be cancelled because the school didn't want an openly lesbian couple there. In steps in a group of parents that say they will host a private "prom" so that the school doesn't have to sanction the gay attendance. The court was ok with that because the "private" "prom" was going to include everyone.However, the parents decided in the end to not host a "private" "prom" at which point the school steps in and hosts a "prom". Not everyone goes. In fact instead of dealing with the school at all a group of kids, and their parents most likely, simply hold a party somewhere else. Holding a party and not inviting everyone is not a crime or vioaltion of any law. So the question really is how many students not going to the "prom" make it a problem that requires legal intrusion into the private lives of these families.You can't argue that they violated anything by having their own private party - private parties happen all the time, and unless you are going to argue that every single party in the country is required to invite every single person into it, you can't make that leap here either. The school had a "prom" and no one wanted to go. Obviously some more facts will come out, but from what we have so far, I'm really not seeing a problem here.Your right I will not argue that the people attending a private party violated the law, they will be judged by public opinion. The problem for the school is that there was no final ruling on the original case. I'm pretty sure the judge will rule that her prom experience was impacted by the schools original decison to cancel the prom. She might not get her prom but future gays from her district will.