from recommending anything else. Similarly, in Locke, unlicensed designers were not left free to recommend design techniques the government might prefer — such as energy saving, “green” designs — but restricted from recommending anything else. In this way, at least, the burden on speech in cases like Lowe is content-neutral. Further, First Amendment scrutiny is not eliminated he challenged provision was a con tent-neutral professional licensing scheme applicable to interior designers that incidentally burdened the speech of unlicensed designers by prohibiting them from giving one-on-one design advice. 634 F.3d at 1191. The four conditions from Lowe were met, and First Amendment scrutiny was not applied. See also Lowe, 472 U.S. at 228, 105 S.Ct. at 2582 (White, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>). With one readily distinguishable exception,
recognizing that general rule applies only to statutes that implicate  no constitutionally protected conduct emphasis added holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that ada and rehabilitation act do not apply to the military absent a clear direction from congress emphasis added recognizing that first amendment scrutiny does not apply to rjegulations on entry into a profession emphasis added