> the government's desired outcome would have made it more difficult for the band to survive True. The govt makes lots of enforcement/promotion decisions, man

> the government's desired outcome would have made it more difficult for the band to survive True. The govt makes lots of enforcement/promotion decisions, many decisions that make things harder for other people/companies (and easier for others). In fact, if a govt decisions has an absolutely equal impact on all parties, it's probably not a law that does anything. I'm not saying there isn't a free speech issue - just that saying "by refusing to limit free commerce the govt is infringing on free speech" show the two sides of the argument, both reasonable. The govt wasn't refusing to enforce with the intention of HARMING anyone directly (probably), it was trying to avoid taking enforcement action that WOULD harm people. Not specific people, but the protected class of race in this case. If you think otherwise, imagine the hypothetical where this occurs, realize some people think of it this way, and see that it means the disagreement is reasonable. I'm probably 60/40 in agreement with the court decision, but that 40% is because I can see the arguments on the other side as well. Your premise that the harm to the team is a problem doesn't hold up overall: It's a tough concept to accept that _intent_ makes a law valid/invalid. Make voting harder with the intent to combat voting fraud, the law is likely valid. Make voting harder with the intent of disenfranchising a particular group, the law is invalid. A cop shoots someone because they felt threatened, is legal. A cop shoots someone because they want to, it's not legal. Agree that it SHOULD be that way or not, this is pretty well established in the court system for quite a while. Which means a govt decision that hurts someone (not this case, a generic one) because of a non-discriminatory INTENT can be valid, while the same decision made for discriminatory reasons can be invalid because of that intent. There are plenty of other arguments that can be had here (Was this decision intentionally discriminatory? Does refusing to enforce (i.e. not taking action) equate to taking action?) but that it harms the team is not terribly relevant.