Summary judgment for defendant-county on challenge to application of regulations affecting fortune tellers is affirmed, where: 1) the First Amendment Free Speech Clause affords some degree of protection to plaintiff's activities; 2) under the professional speech doctrine, defendant's regulations do not abridge plaintiff's First Amendment freedom of speech; 3) plaintiff's set of beliefs comprise a way of life but not does not constitute a religion and therefore the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's constitutional and statutory religion claims; and 4) plaintiff's Equal Protection claim fails because defendant's regulatory scheme bears a rational relationship to legitimate governmental interests.