intimate group. The Court held that this guarantee - which protects, among other things, the right to marriage, childbirth, and cohabitation with one's relatives - does not extend to the Jaycees because local chapters of the Jaycees are "large and basically unselective groups." The Court next held that the First Amendment's protection of expressive association also does not apply to the Jaycees. The First Amendment generally protects the right to associate in an expressive context, because many individual First Amendment rights lose their meaning if they cannot be expressed by a group. However, Supreme Court precedent allows the State to curtail the freedom of expression when the restriction 1) serves compelling state interests, 2) does not relate to the suppression of ideas, and 3) cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. The statute, the Court held, serves compelling state interests because Minnesota sought to regulate access to the economy, and Minnesota could include in that regulatory effort the leadership services that organizations like the Jaycees provide. The Court concluded that the Minnesota Human Rights Act does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, either facially or as applied, meaning it does not relate to the suppression of ideas. The Court also found that the statute used the least restrictive means, as the Jaycees had failed to show that the Act burdens male members' freedom of association to a meaningful degree. The Jaycees argued, and the 8th Circuit agreed, that letting in women could change the group's political positions, but the Supreme Court rejected this claim, noting the lack of any evidence in the record that women would have different positions on issues than the men in the Jaycees. The Majority said that the Jaycees, or future parties, have to make a "substantial" showing that the admission of unwelcome members would change the group's message. Finally, the Court ruled that the law was not vague or overbroad because Minnesota's Supreme Court concluded that the Act covers the Jaycees based on specific criteria like the organization’s size, selectivity, commercial nature, and use of public facilities. Justice O'Connor's Partial Concurrence Justice O'Connor joined the Majority's opinion for Parts I (cataloguing the facts) and III (holding that the law is not vague or overbroad). Justice O'Connor also agreed that the Jaycees could not claim protection in the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of expressive association. Justice O'Connor took issue, however, with the