' s ▁opinion , ▁but ▁wrote ▁separately ▁to ▁express ▁his ▁own ▁views . ▁ ▁He ▁did ▁not ▁believe ▁that ▁the ▁Club ' s ▁activities ▁were ▁co er ci ve ▁at ▁all . ▁ ▁" As ▁to ▁end ors ement , ▁I ▁have ▁previously ▁written ▁that ▁religious ▁expression ▁cannot ▁viol ate ▁the ▁Est ab lish ment ▁Cla use ▁where ▁it ▁( 1 ) ▁is ▁purely ▁private ▁and ▁( 2 ) ▁occurs ▁in ▁a ▁traditional ▁or ▁designated ▁public ▁forum , ▁public ly ▁announced ▁and ▁open ▁to ▁all ▁on ▁equal ▁terms . ▁ ▁The ▁same ▁is ▁true ▁of ▁private ▁speech ▁that ▁occurs ▁in ▁a ▁limited ▁public ▁forum , ▁public ly ▁announced , ▁whose ▁boundaries ▁are ▁not ▁drawn ▁in ▁favor ▁of ▁religious ▁groups ▁but ▁instead ▁permit ▁a ▁cross - section ▁of ▁uses ." ▁ ▁Mil ford ▁could ▁not ▁justify ▁ex cluding ▁the ▁Club ▁simply ▁because ▁its ▁speech ▁was ▁religious ▁in ▁nature , ▁and ▁so ▁S cal ia ▁did ▁not ▁worry ▁whether ▁the ▁disc rim ination ▁was ▁content - based ▁or ▁view point - based . ▁ ▁In ▁any ▁event , ▁S cal ia ▁str essed ▁that ▁Mil ford ▁was ▁eng aging ▁in ▁view point ▁disc rim ination . ▁ ▁Bre yer ' s ▁conc urr ing ▁opinion ▁Justice ▁Bre yer ▁disput ed ▁the ▁majority ' s ▁assumption ▁that ▁the ▁per ception ▁of ▁the ▁children ▁was ▁irrelevant . ▁ ▁Even ▁in ▁Lamb ' s ▁Chap el , ▁the ▁Court ▁had ▁re lied ▁in ▁part ▁on ▁the ▁per ception ▁of ▁the ▁children ▁in ▁determ ining ▁whether ▁there ▁had ▁been