Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Lukumi and Fraternal Order of Police forbid. We believe that the Borough’s selective, discretionary application of Ordinance 691 against the leehis violates the neutrality principle of Lukumi and Fraternal Order of Police because it “devalues” Orthodox Jewish reasons for posting items on utility poles by “judging them to be of lesser import than nonreligious reasons,” and thus “single[s] out” the plaintiffs’ religiously motivated conduct for discriminatory treatment. Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537, 113 S.Ct. 2217; Fraternal Order of Police, 170 F.3d at 364-65. Just as the exemptions for secularly motivated killings in Lukumi indicated that the city was discriminating against Santería animal sacrifice, and just as the medical exemption in Fr f Va., 515 U.S. at 831-35, 115 S.Ct. 2510 . In contrast, the principle of Northwest
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that property interest based on contractual relationship may arise  when a student enrolls in a college or university pays his or her tuition and fees and attends such school 
B. holding that university violated first amendment by expelling student for printing indecent newspaper despite student code prohibiting indecent conduct or speech
C. holding that free speech clause precludes state university that pays student publications printing costs from denying funding based on publications religious viewpoint
D. holding unconstitutional a rule excluding all religious speech as viewpoint discrimination
E. holding that where university has opened its forum to other similar student groups its denial of recognition to homosexual student group was the sort of viewpoint based discrimination forbidden by perry and was invalid under the first amendment unless the university could support this discrimination by providing a compelling reason for its actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.