I. Introduction

II. The No-Compelled-Speech Doctrine: A Summary of the Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence ... A. Justice Jackson’s Iconic Opinion in Barnette ... B. Wooley and Libertarian Authoritarianism ... C. When Government Treats Speech as a Public Accommodation: Hurley’s Unanimous Decision ... D. Justice Kennedy Reaches Across Time to Unite with Justice Jackson

III. A Careful Reading of Telescope Media ... A. Stras Versus Kelly: Regulation of Speech or Conduct? ... B. Stras Versus Kelly: Content-Neutral or Content-Based Law? ... C. Stras Versus Kelly: Strict Scrutiny/Compelling Interest Test

IV. Defending the Reasoning of Telescope Media’s Compelled Speech Decision ... A. The No-Compelled-Speech Doctrine Applies When “A” Is Compelled to Speak, Create, or Help Disseminate the Message of “B” ... B. Compelled Speech Under Public Accommodation Laws Is Usually Viewpoint-Based, and Certainly Not Content-Neutral … C. Herein of Compelling Interests and Relative Harms ... D. The Race Analogy Does Not Apply to Wedding Vendors and Compelled Speech Cases

V. Conclusion