Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516474571 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/16/2022 No. 21-51178 The fourth case is Hurley. GLIB, an organization of Irish-American gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, sought to march in a St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston. 515 U.S. at 561. The parade was organized by a private group, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (“Council”). Id. at 560. The Council refused to admit GLIB, citing “traditional religious and social values.” Id. at 562 (quotation omitted). But the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the parade was a public accommodation under state law, so the Council had to let GLIB participate. Id. at 564. The Council argued that this application of Massachusetts’s public accommodation law violated the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court agreed. Id. at 566. The Court concluded that the parade was a “form of expression” that receives First Amendment protection. Id. at 568. That’s because “[r]ather like a composer, the Council selects the expressive units of the parade from potential participants, and though the score may not produce a particularized message, each contingent’s expression in the Council’s eyes comports with what merits celebration on that day.” Id. at 574. And it didn’t matter that the Council was “rather lenient in admitting participants,” because “a private speaker does not forfeit constitutional protection simply by combining multifarious voices, or by failing to edit their themes to isolate an exact message as the exclusive subject matter of the speech.” Id. at 569–70. voluntarily opened his property up to the public, whereas PG&E “has never opened up its billing envelope to the use of the public.” Id. at 22. Second, in PruneYard, the speech of the shopping mall owner was not “hindered in the slightest” by the public’s pamphleteering right. Id. at 24. PG&E, by contrast, involved “a forum of inherently limited scope,” such that the State’s appropriation of that forum for a third party’s use necessarily curtailed PG&E’s ability to speak in that forum. Ibid. And this interference with PG&E’s speech could not be justified by the State’s goal of “subsidiz[ing] . . . another speaker chosen by the State.” Ibid. 25