Print 
PDF
Associate Justice Samuel Alito exposed the absurdity of a Colorado law prohibiting so-called “conversion therapy” for minors during a high-profile case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The moment came during oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case focused on a legal challenge brought by Colorado resident Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist who provides counseling to children struggling with issues related to sexual orientation and gender dysphoria.
Chiles alleges that the Centennial State’s “conversion therapy” law infringes upon her First Amendment right to free speech by inhibiting the types of discussions she has with her minor clients.
This is the most perverted law I have ever seen. Colorado is not the only state with such a law.
Be informed, not misled.
When questioning Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, Alito posed a pair of hypothetical scenarios undermining the state’s argument that the statute does not engage in “viewpoint discrimination.” Alito’s questioning exposed the state’s policy of permitting therapists to encourage a child’s homosexual or transgenderism-related behaviors, while at the same time prohibiting therapists from offering counseling that could help a child overcome them.
“So in the first situation, an adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist and says he’s attracted to other males, but he feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings. He wants to end or lessen them, and he asks for the therapist’s help in doing so,” Alito said. “The other situation is a similar adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist, says he’s attracted to other males, feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings, and he wants the therapist’s help so he will feel comfortable as a gay young man.”
The Left, in passing this Colorado law, has perverted common sense and their so-called "equity" in ways beyond belief. And they have silenced Christian therapists. And pastors.
In other words, if someone wants professional help in accepting their gender dysphoria, the therapist can legally help them feel good about their attraction to the same sex.
Conversely, if someone wants professional help to rid themselves of unwanted same sex attractions, the therapist cannot legally help them.
There is no doubt this is "viewpoint discrimination" and violates First Amendment rights.
Alito continued:
He went on to argue that Colorado’s interpretation of the statute “dictates opposite results in those two situations … based on the viewpoint expressed.” “One viewpoint,” he noted, “is the viewpoint that a minor should be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction, if that’s what … he or she wants,” while “the other is the viewpoint that the minor should not be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction, even if that is what he or she wants.”
This “[l]ooks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,” Alito said.
In response, Stevenson claimed that both examples would “be permissible” under Colorado’s law because it "didn’t sound like in either case the goal was to actually change sexual orientation.”
“And again, that’s the touchstone because that’s where the harms come from,” Stevenson said.
Even Leftist Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan posed a similar hypothetical with the assumption “that we’re in normal free speech land rather than in this kind of doctor land.”
“If a doctor says, ‘I know you identify as gay, and I’m going to help you accept that,’ and another doctor says, ‘I know you identify as gay, and I’m going to help you to change that,’ and one of those is permissible and the other is not, that seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination,” Kagan said.
Stevenson did not dispute Kagan’s reasoning, but attempted to defend Colorado’s law by arguing that “medical treatment has to be treated differently because any time you exclude one harmful practice, you are by definition saying these things are allowed because they are not harmful and these things are excluded because they are harmful.”
Justices Amy Coney-Barrett and Neil Gorsuch were having none of it.
He specifically probed whether, under Colorado’s argument, a state could “forbid a regulated licensed professional from affirming homosexuality if that were consistent with the then-prevailing ‘standard of care'” and “so likewise, if the prevailing standard of care were to change or solidify that this sort of talk therapy is beneficial to minors, or at least not harmful to minors, then a state could pass a mirror image statute to Colorado’s that prohibits any attempt to affirm changes of gender identity or sexual orientation, and that would be subject to mere rational basis review” as opposed to strict scrutiny?
Stevenson’s unsuccessful attempt to adequately address Gorsuch’s questions prompted Barrett to interject and press the state solicitor general on the point of “medical uncertainty.” The junior justice highlighted potential “competing” views within the medical community about the safety and efficacy of conversion talk therapy and so-called “gender affirming care.
At the end of the day, it appears the Supreme Court is leaning toward knocking down Colorado's discriminatory law regarding who can, and who cannot, speak to the destructive behavior of the LGBTQ movement.
Takeway
The conversion therapy law is "another example of Colorado trying to censor speech in a slightly different context, but very much related," Anderson said. "And we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will again give a bold vindication of free speech for everyone."
I believe the High Court is leaning toward what Kate Anderson and millions of Christians across the nation are hoping for.
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Bold. Be Prayerful.
