Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): there was no explicit delineation of which subjects were permitted. Therefore, the Policy did not regulate viewpoints on a list of permitted subjects; it simply eliminated one subject, religion, from the subjects that could be discussed in this nonpublic forum. Therefore, the Building Authority claims that it properly exerted its right to exercise its control over the nonpublic forum lobby in a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral manner: Its Policy prohibits all religious displays and symbols. It further suggests that there is no evidence that it would allow, under private sponsorship, secular seasonal holiday displays. We cannot accept these attempts to distinguish the clear teaching of Lamb’s Chapel. As the court’s colloquy with counsel at oral argument made quite clear, the Poli (<HOLDING>); cf. AIDS Action Comm, of Mass., Inc. v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403 (B) holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay (C) holding that the exclusion of peace activists from career days when military recruiters were permitted access was viewpointbased administration (D) holding exclusion was harmless error (E) holding exclusion was not ambiguous
Output (English): holding exclusion was not ambiguous