— U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2043 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The other involves “[e]xemptions from an otherwise legitimate regulation of a medium of speech ... [that] may diminish the credibility of the government’s rationale for restricting speech in the first place.” Id. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 2044 (citing City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., — U.S. -, ---, 113 S.Ct. 1505, 1511-15, 123 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993)). Based on our reading of Gilleo and the other Supreme Court cases cited above, we conclude that an underinclusive time, place, and manner regulation that is otherwise valid must be found to be constitutional so long as it does not favor one side of an issue and its rationale is not undermined by its exemptions. Cf. Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The sales regulation meets both of these
holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment holding that a claim under the first amendment overbreadth doctrine will not succeed unless  the challenged statute itself will significantly compromise recognized first amendment protections of parties not before the court holding unconstitutional a rule excluding all religious speech as viewpoint discrimination holding that an underinclusive regulation will violate the first amendment only if it favors a particular viewpoint holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment