is unavoidably, and frequently, and personally exposed to the state’s demeaning and discriminatory message, and that it has impacted him personally in a variety of ways.” However, Plaintiffs reading does not comport with Allen’s text or its subsequent interpretation. Allen held that when plaintiffs ground their equal protection injuries in stigmatic harm, they only have standing if they also allege discriminatory treatment. Allen, 468 U.S. at 755, 104 S.Ct. 3315. That Plaintiff alleges that he personally and deeply feels the impact of Mississippi’s state flag, however sincere those allegations are, is irrelevant to Allen’s, standing analysis unless Plaintiff alleges discriminatory treatment. See, e.g., Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Lew, 773 F.3d 815, 822 (7th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); In re U.S. Catholic Conference, 885 F.2d
holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that the allen inquiry is unchanged when plaintiffs claimed to be part of small group facing discrimination holding that a defendants guilty plea   forecloses independent inquiry into the claim of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury holding anything else inquiry to be insufficient holding that plaintiffs fatally deficient protest cannot be resuscitated by plaintiffs conjecture that customs had actual knowledge of plaintiffs claimed classification