68 - Breaking News

Earlier today, the Supreme Court released its decision on the Chiles v Salazar case, which debated the legality of bans against talk therapy for those looking for assistance with unwanted attractions to the same sex and/or confusion/insecurity about their gender. In a stunning move, the Justices ruled 8-1 in favor of Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado and a Christian.

Although analysts expected this to be the outcome, seeing a nearly unanimous decision was a surprise. The decision was based in part on the following:

As applied to Ms. Chiles, Colorado’s law regulates the content of her speech and goes further to prescribe what views she may and may not express, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. The law permits her to express acceptance and support for clients exploring their identity or undergoing gender transition, §12–245–202(3.5)(b), but forbids her from saying anything that attempts to change a client’s “sexual orientation or gender identity,” including efforts to change “behaviors,” “gender expressions,” or “romantic attraction[s],” §12–245–202(3.5)(a). Her speech does not become “conduct” just because a government says so or because it may be described as a “treatment” or “therapeutic modality.” The First Amendment is no word game, and “the exercise of constitutional rights” cannot be circumscribed “by mere labels.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 429.

The fact that the State’s viewpoint regulation falls only on licensed health care professionals does not change the equation. The First Amendment protects the right of all to speak their minds, and NIFLA expressly rejected the notion that professional speech is subject to “ ‘diminished constitutional protection.’ ” 585 U. S., at 767. History is littered with examples of governments that have sought to manipulate professional speech “ to increase state power, ” “ suppress minorities, ” and censor “ ‘unpopular ideas.’ ” Id., at 771.[1]

For years, the argument has been made that broad-based “conversion therapy” bans amount to viewpoint discrimination, and now the highest court in the nation agrees. We pray that this will lead to an increase in the quality of professional Christian counseling research and practice, and rejoice that those who are seeking the Lord’s will may have more freedom to do so.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf, pg 2-3