This Article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Hurley v. Irish-American and compares it to the decision in Stropnicky v. Nathanson. It then considers whether there are sufficient distinctions between the two cases so as to defeat the First Amendment argument that was successful in Hurley. It concludes that the differences between the two cases are not sufficiently significant from the point of view of the First Amendment and that the application of the state public accommodation statute to a lawyer's ideologically motivated decision not to represent a client violates the First Amendment.
20 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 49 (1998)