nonprofit organizations from selling merchandise in the Fisherman’s Wharf or Union Square areas of San Francisco without a peddler’s permit. Id. at 1060-61. These organizations argued that their conduct of informing individuals of their causes and at the same time selling merchandise affixed with their messages was speech fully protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 1063. Gaudiya determined that full First Amendment protection applies to the sale of merchandise so long as the “sale of merchandise [ ] is inextricably intertwined with a statement carrying a religious, political, philosophical or ideological message,” and that the non-profit organizations’ activities fell within this definition. Id. at 1064-66; see also Perry v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 121 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); One World One Family Now v. City & Cnty. of
holding that independent contractor claiming denial of public contract because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment holding that regulations forcing mushroom producers to fund generic advertising violated the first amendment even though they did not compel the expression of political or ideological views holding that religious and political groups sale of merchandise and literature was fully protected holding that independent contractor claiming loss of and denial of contracts because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment holding that the sale of music buttons and bumper stickers bearing political religious and ideological messages was fully protected by the first amendment