in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence. Id. at 593-94, 46 S.Ct. 605. The Supreme Court has further applied the doctrine in the context of privileges conditioned on infringement of individual liberty rights, such as First Amendment freedoms of speech, religious expression, and association. See, e.g., O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712, 721, 116 S.Ct. 2353,135 L.Ed.2d 874 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The application of this doctrine to other
holding that time limits on enrollment in political parties did not violate the right of association because individuals were not prohibited from enrolling in parties holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of political affiliation not protected by first amendment holding that a condition on becoming an independent contractor for a municipality unconstitutionally coerced relinquishment of an individuals right to political association recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor holding that independent contractor claiming denial of public contract because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment