The district court considered and rejected each of these arguments. Finally, Moore–King claims that the County's regulatory scheme treats her differently than similarly situated people or entities, and in so doing, violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Her third contention is similar: that the County has substantially burdened her religious exercise in violation of the RLUIPA. Second, she argues that the County has violated her right to the free exercise of her religion, *566 also protected by the First Amendment. First, she asserts that the County's regulatory scheme violates her First Amendment right to free speech. Moore–King presses four arguments on appeal. Finally, finding no entity or individual similarly situated to but treated differently from Moore–King, the district court determined that the County's regulation of Moore–King as a fortune teller did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Having concluded Moore–King was not engaged in the practice of a religion, the district court granted summary judgment to the County on both Moore–King's constitutional and statutory religion claims. at 623 (“Religious experience is not typically thought of as purchased chunks at a time.”). It found further support for its conclusion in the “panoramic potpourri of spiritual and secular interests” and her “fee for service model” approach to counseling. As to Moore–King's free exercise and RLUIPA claims, the district court found that Moore–King followed no particular religion in large part because she “expressly disavows that her beliefs are rooted in any religion.” Id. The district court then addressed Moore–King's remaining arguments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |