(37) Photographs, 402 U.S. at 376, 91 S.Ct. at 1408). 25 . See Coil, 442 F.3d at 917 (stating that Stanley and its progeny, including Paris Adult Theatre I, ”uphold[] the constitutionality of the obscenity laws against attacks on both the First Amendment and substantive due process”); Extreme Assocs., Inc., 431 F.3d at 157 (rejecting the argument that Paris Adult The-atre I, Orito, and Reidel dealt only with a First, and not a Fourteenth, Amendment concept of privacy merely because the phrase "substantive due process” was not used in their holdings). 26 . 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003). 34 . Because there is no constitutional right to sell obscene material, appellant's argument that such a right is "fundamental” fails. 27 . Id. at 578, 123 S.Ct. at 2483-84 (<HOLDING>). 28 . Id., 123 S.Ct. at 2484. 29 . Rodriguez
recognizing that a plaintiff can demonstrate that samesex harassment is because of sex by showing that the conduct was motivated by the coworkers sexual desire for persons of the same sex holding unconstitutional the texas statute criminalizing deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex recognizing the same rule in texas courts holding that evidence was insufficient where the victim testified that she was awake and communicated her desire not to have sexual intercourse with the defendant holding that an effort of the defendant by words of persuasion alone to induce the plaintiff to grant him the favor of sexual intercourse was not an assault