Opinion ID: 772102
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exemption from the Ordinance

Text: 49 For the same reason, we deny plaintiffs' request for an exemption from the requirements of the ordinance. Plaintiffs argue that they should be granted an exemption from the ordinance because seeking permission to spread their religious beliefs violates their religious convictions. To support their argument they cite Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), for the proposition that where an individual's beliefs are a matter of deep rooted religious convictions and complying with the regulation would violate those convictions, the individual should be granted an exemption from complying with the regulation. 50 That is not the law. As the Court noted in Smith, it has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. Smith, 494 U.S. at 878-79. Our review indicates that the ordinance is valid, and therefore, plaintiffs must comply with it. 51 In conclusion, we affirm the district court's judgment that the ordinance does not violate plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and we deny them an exemption from complying with the ordinance. We now review the Village's challenges to the district court's judgment awarding plaintiffs attorneys' fees.