Right not to be associated with particular ideas
a)    Def:  if gov’t forces an individual to give money to a cause they don’t like or makes a group accept new members it doesn’t want => strict scrutiny.
b)    Freedom of association:  gov’t can’t make mere membership in a group illegal unless group (1) does illegal stuff or incites others to do illegal stuff and (2) the member knows of the group’s illegal activity & specifically intends to further the illegalities.
c)    There is a C’al right not to speak.
i)    Barnette Jehovah children wouldn’t salute flag
ii)    Keller  state bar can require lawyers to give $ to regulate profession, but not to further views he doesn’t agree with (rt to not endorse views)
iii)    Hurley v. Irish Am Gays
(1)    Facts:  Irish parade didn’t want gays in parade.  All paraders had to apply for permit.  Gays not given permit.
(2)    Tests:
(a)    Parade is expressive conduct
(b)    But gov’t wasn’t keeping Gays from having their own parade
(c)    Original parade had first am. right to speak alone & he did not lose his first am protection to speak by inviting others to speak with him; he had absolute autonomy over the message he wants to convey. (right not to be associated with others’ ideas).
(d)    Did the parade guy have to be rzbl & vp neutral per non-public forums, or is non-public forums only govt’al forums?
d)    Don’t have to let opposite party vote.  Calif Democratic Party v. Jones