My most recent TWEN diatribe, regarding a rather nonsensical rant against the holding in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston:

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be when a sacred cow is slaughtered at the hands of such a crazed Court, such as in this unanimous decision.

I find Hurley to be a deeply troubling legitimization of hatred.

I'm not surprised. However, a logical reading of the decision can't lead to such an opinion.

I also find it a bit troubling that the class seemed to believe that Boy Scouts was so obviously wrong but that Hurley was so obviously right.

Some us apparently believe in freedom of speech and its concomitants, while others merely believe in it until a politically correct topic is adversely impacted by that right.

First, there was no "licensing system." There were votes by the members of the expressive association about which other groups properly supported their views. They had no perpetual grant of a license, and, in fact, had to apply every year. The city had in no way delegated authority over such matters to the SBAWVC.

Second, the parade was private and had been private for some time. As above, the SBAWVC was required annually to apply for a permit. They elected their internal representatives, planned the parade, and decided what messages to include in their expression. The fact that an activity was once public but had long before gone private certainly doesn't imply state action.

You suggest that decision would make it easy for states to allow discrimination in their events, by turning over your so-called "licensing" to private organizations. However, if a state actor actually did delegate control to a private group with the intent to discriminate against groups, that would be a different situation, indeed. Unless, of course, you've dug up some other information that suggests that, in the rollicking, gay-happy post-War era, this parade was turned over by the city in an effort to allow exclusionary policies to come to fruition.

Third, as to the Jaycees, you're simply attributing something different to the impact than the Court did. The impact on the Jaycees' message was minimal, because 1) they already admitted female members; and 2) nothing about admitting female members required a change in their message pertaining to the education of young men. The Court wasn't requiring that they change that message. In short, there was little-to-no impact on the group's expression.

Fourth, the elephant you perceive simply isn't there. The GLIB group was making a statement:

In 1992, a number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual descendants of the Irish immigrants joined together with other supporters to form the respondent organization, GLIB, to march in the parade as a way to express pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, to demonstrate that there are such men and women among those so descended, and to express their solidarity with like individuals who sought to march in New York's St. Patrick's Day Parade.

The latter is clearly a political expression, and is almost definitely a message that the SBAWVC did not wish to express, likely in solidarity with their brethren in New York. The former may be less political, but is still a message, especially when it comes from a self-identified group that wishes to be independently recognized. After all, there was no reason someone couldn't have marched individually while being openly gay. But that wasn't what GLIB was after; GLIB was looking to send a message of its own. Their message that they're Irish was congruent with that of the SBAWVC. Their message that there are Irish homosexuals is at best orthogonal to the main message. And their message in support of the New York group was almost unquestionably counter to expressions the SBAWVC wanted to make.

Fifth, you assert:

Regardless of legal analysis, Hurley would not have come out the same way if Blacks or women or Christians had been denied a float in the parade. Since we are not dealing with Equal Protection on this issue, there is no reason for treating the exclusion of those groups any differently from the exclusion of GLIB.

As you said, this was not an Equal Protection issue. the SBAWVC wasn't denying access to gays, blacks, women, or any other (potentially) suspect class. What they were doing was prohibiting a distinct group from expressing a message they felt ran counter to their own. Do you really think it would be cut-and-dried if the Nation of Islam decided it wanted to march in the parade?

But that is hardly the point, anyway. This is about the freedom of expression. And while I can only gather that you believe only in freedom of expression for those expressing views you feel are "right," I'm having difficulty understanding why you think the SBAWVC should be forced to express a view that it's okay to be openly homosexual and Irish. Neither you nor I nor the Supreme Court should tell people what they must believe. People have the rights to be bigots in this country, and they have and must have the rights to express whatever bigotry they so choose.

Finally, you close with this gem:

I guess the rule to take away is that a group can only discriminate if the discrimination is integral to the group's message, but if the discrimination is against gays, the Court will automatically presume that discrimination to be integral.

Or, you can take away the more meaningful idea that freedom of expression is critical, that parades are inherently expressive activities, and that groups that organize parades, whether their views are popular or not, should have the right to determine was messages their expressive activity will send.