in the city’s park' alongside other religious and secular displays.' Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 481, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009). Explaining its rationale, it cited the history of government use of monuments to speak to’ the public; the fact that observers generally expected permanent monuments to convey a message on the property owner’s behalf; and the.city’s control over the selection of monuments. Id, at 470-73, 129 S.Ct. 1125. At the same . time, however, speech that is otherwise private does not become speech of the government merely because the government provides a forum for the speech or in some way allows or facilitates it. See, e.g., Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 811-13, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Latino Officers Ass’n, N.Y., Inc. v. City of
holding that a charity drive organized by government was nonpublic forum for private speakers to solicit donations and therefore that viewpoint discrimination was prohibited holding unconstitutional a rule excluding all religious speech as viewpoint discrimination holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination holding that an underinclusive regulation will violate the first amendment only if it favors a particular viewpoint