The Supreme Court has struck down Colorado's ban on 'conversion therapy,' ruling that it violates the First Amendment by censoring speech based on viewpoint.



The Supreme Court recently ruled against a law banning “conversion therapy” in Colorado. The 8-1 majority sided with a Christian counselor who argued that the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, had to do with a Colorado law that prohibited counselors from offering therapy to minors that would discourage elements of their sexual identity and orientation. Instead of “conversion therapy,” they could only offer “acceptance, support, and understanding.”

A Christian counselor, Kaley Chiles, argued that the law burdened her First Amendment right to use talk therapy with her clients. Her attorneys argued that the Colorado ban made it hard for parents to find therapists who were willing to discuss gender identity with a child unless the counseling affirmed transition. After two federal courts ruled against her, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case.

Even liberal justices felt that there was viewpoint discrimination at hand (Elena Kagan) and that Colorado was selecting certain sorts of speech as less worthy of protection than others (Sonia Sotomayor). Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said that the law “censors speech based on viewpoint,” and that the First Amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

In a statement following the decision, Chiles said, “Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries.”

As Daniel Bennett wrote in Christianity Today, Christians can be encouraged by the Chiles decision:

For one thing, it allows a counselor to provide care based on the needs of the patient. Obviously, Tuesday’s decision does not require counselors to prioritize “conversion therapy” for clients questioning their sexual identity and orientation. What it does do, however, is make all sorts of conversations an option in counseling relationships while barring states from privileging certain kinds of speech. Any time the government is prohibited from playing favorites regarding speech, Americans—including Christians—should rejoice.

Christians can also be thankful that the government cannot impose restrictions on the sensitive conversations patients have with their counselors. Patients (including minors) struggling with questions about their sexual identity and orientation should want counselors to approach them with the highest degree of professionalism and attention to care, not with an eye toward what state regulations require them to say or not say....

Finally, Christians can be heartened by yet another favorable Supreme Court decision with implications for religious expression. Although the court did not examine Chiles v. Salazar through the lens of the free exercise clause, it isn’t hard to see a connection, given the case’s subject matter, coupled with Chiles’s attorneys citing her Christian faith as motivation for her counseling. And while the result of this decision is more positive for free speech than for free exercise, it will not hurt future cases where religious freedom is front and center.

C.S. Lewis once wrote of the desire to take control over all nature, even human nature, and declare our independence. With full control over ourselves, we will have “won” the ultimate battle. But what is won? Nothing. This led to Lewis’ prediction in a 1947 essay that, “Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of man.”

Let’s hope this is one small step to continuing to be a voice of reason in a deeply fallen world.

Source