relative smallness, a high degree of selectivity in decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion from oth ers in critical aspects of the relationship.” Roberts, 468 U.S. at 620, 104 S.Ct. 3244. We agree with the District Court that the Stouffers’s wedding reception is not entitled to protection under either theory. As the District Court explained, the Stouffers were not engaging in expressive activity by hosting a party to celebrate their marriage, as they clearly were not gathering to pursue a political, cultural, or civic goal. See City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 24-25, 109 S.Ct. 1591, 104 L.Ed.2d 18 (1989) (stating that social association with strangers at a dance club does not implicate the right of expressive association); Pi Lambda, 229 F.3d at 444-45 (<HOLDING>). Nor was their party an intimate association
holding that fraternity lacked first amendment protection because it engaged in merely social activities recognizing first amendment protection for news gathering holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of lobbying and other political activities not protected by first amendment holding that legislative immunity is not forfeited simply because the activities if unprotected might violate a plaintiffs first amendment rights holding that an equal protection claim was no more than a first amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing and was thus subsumed by and coextensive with the first amendment claim