Petitioner South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, an unincorporated association of individuals elected from various veterans groups, was authorized by the city of Boston to organize and conduct the St. Patrick's Day-Evacuation Day Parade. The Council refused a place in the event to respondent GLIB, an organization formed for the purpose of marching in the parade in order to express its members' pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, to show that there are such individuals in the community, and to support the like men and women who sought to march in the New York St. Patrick's Day parade. GLIB and some of its members filed this suit in state court, alleging that the denial of their application to march violated, inter alia, a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. In finding such a violation and ordering the Council to include GLIB in the parade, the trial court, among other things, concluded that the parade had no common theme other than the involvement of the participants, and that, given the Council's lack of selectivity in choosing parade participants and its failure to circumscribe the marchers' messages, the parade lacked any expressive purpose, such that GLIB's inclusion therein would not violate the Council's First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, U.S. ()
In this article I explore two important questions raised by the Hurley v. First, although the Supreme Court did not analyze the case under the Roberts framework, it suggested at the conclusion of the opinion that the case would have the same outcome under that test. The Court's dictum concerning the Roberts trilogy thus raises the question whether Hurley indicates that the Court might disturb the Roberts doctrine if presented with the opportunity. Second, the Hurley Court, in rejecting GLIB's claim, found that the parade organizers were not attempting to exclude gay and lesbian participants as such, but rather merely did not want the plaintiff to march in the parade as an organized unit with banners and other accouterments of parade participation. This finding contradicts the state court's finding of fact that the exclusion of the unit amounted to invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The state court's rulings are plausible given the importance of outness and open declarations of sexual orientation in the struggle for gay and lesbian equality and in the construction of sexual identity. Because outness is intertwined with sexual identity, defendant's refusal to allow GLIB to march openly in the parade constituted an attempt to silence--or closet--non-heterosexual identity.
Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible
And then it protects more than your freedom to speak your mind; it guards your freedom not to speak the mind of another. Most famously, in West Virginia v. In Wooley v.
Hurley v. The Court ruled that private organizations, even if they were planning on and had permits for a public demonstration, were permitted to exclude groups if those groups presented a message contrary to the one the organizing group wanted to convey. Addressing the specific issues of the case, the Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be presented by their demonstration, even if the intent of the state was to prevent discrimination. From until , the city of Boston, Massachusetts , sponsored public celebrations of St. Patrick's Day and Evacuation Day , which marks the departure of British troops from the city in , on or about March