Laserfiche WebLink
April 10, 2013 ( Volume 7 I Issue 7 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />clinical psychologists and licensed professional counselors. Moore- <br />King's primary practice was spiritual counseling involving a psychic <br />reading based on tarot cards and astrological signs. <br />In August 2009, authorities from the County contacted Moore -King <br />and infoiiiied her she needed a business license to operate. When Moore - <br />King sought to register with the County's Commissioner of Revenue as a <br />business likely to earn less than $10,000 in annual revenue, she learned <br />that the County classified her as a fortune teller as defined in the County <br />Code. The County required any individual seeking to open a business as a <br />fortune teller to acquire a fortune teller business permit, pay the fortune <br />teller license tax, and secure a conditional use permit in certain zoning <br />districts. She then received a letter informing her that she owed the County <br />$343.75, consisting of the $300 fortune teller license tax under Code <br />§ 6-44 and a penalty and accrued interest for late payment. <br />Moore -King chose not to pay the license tax but instead to challenge <br />the legality of the County's regulatory scheme (which included the zon- <br />ing ordinance, business license tax ordinance, and fortune teller permit <br />ordinance). In December 2009, she filed a complaint against the County <br />alleging seven counts under the Constitution and federal statutory law. <br />Among other things, she asserted violations of her First Amendment rights <br />to free speech and the free exercise of religion; statutory claims under the <br />Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (the "RLUIPA"), <br />42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc et seq.; and allegations that the County's regula- <br />tory treatment of her violated the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th <br />Amendment. <br />Finding no issues of material fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on <br />the law alone, the district court eventually issued summary judgment in <br />favor of the County. <br />Moore appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, held that the <br />County ordinances (i.e., the zoning ordinance, business license tax <br />ordinance, and fortune teller permit ordinance) that regulated Moore- <br />King's fortune telling business did not violate the First Amendment <br />expression rights of Moore -King. The court also found that Moore -King' s <br />beliefs were a way of life, rather than deep religious convictions, and <br />therefore not entitled to protections offered by the First Amendment or <br />RLUIPA. Also, the court held that the County's regulatory -treatment of <br />Moore -King did not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th <br />Amendment because the County could rationally find it proper to place a <br />greater regulatory burden on Moore-King's activities than on licensed <br />counselors and advisors. <br />On appeal, Moore -King had contended that the County's regulatory <br />scheme for fortune tellers trenched upon her constitutional right to free <br />expression. The County responded that Moore-King's business involved <br />6 © 2013 Thomson Reuters <br />