amounted to viewpoint discrimination). Our circuit has also applied these principles when announcing that “no arm of government may discriminate against religious speech when speech on other subjects is permitted in the same place at the same time.” Hedges v. Wauconda Community Unit School Dist. No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295, 1297 (7th Cir.1993): The first amendment’s ban on discriminating against religious speech does not depend on whether the school is a “public forum” and, if so, what kind.... Even when the government may forbid a category of speech outright, it may not discriminate on account of the speaker’s viewpoint. Especially not on account of a religious subject matter, which the free exercise clause of the first amendment singles out for protection. Id. at 1298 (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); see Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v.
holding school district violated first amendment when it denied church use of public school facilities to show film series solely because it presented a religious view of family values holding that exclusion of religious groups from universitys open forum policy violated the first amendment holding that retaliation against a school employee who placed her child in private school violates rights protected under the first amendment and the penumbra of familial privacy rights recognized by the supreme court holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students holding that school policy prohibiting written material of a religious nature violates the fust amendment