[at-l] AT License Plate

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 02:15 AM 4/25/2005 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>
>          I read a newspaper article a few weeks back saying how Louisiana
>rejected a lawsuit claiming the state discriminated against special 
>interests by
>determining who could and could not have a specialty tag.
>
>           The case was based on the fact that pro-life groups were 
> allowed to
>have a special tag and others were not. The lawsuit claimed that the state
>was making a discriminatory decision when it decided which causes were worthy
>and which weren't. They also claimed the state was violating its limits when
>this decision created funding for the approved special interest.
>
>           A judge threw the case out. This was a victory for groups seeking
>to raise money via specialty tags...

I don't get this. Someone or some group was suing for the right to have a 
specialty plate on the grounds that another group was allowed to have one, 
the judge "threw the case out" (as in dismissed it) and that is a "victory 
for groups seeking to raise money via specialty tags"? I don't see how. It 
looks more like a defeat to me.