Supreme Court Decides for Therapist in "Conversion Therapy" Case

[martybegan]

A narrow opinion in the case, Chiles V. Salazar where a therapist challenged her talk therapy being considered conversion therapy. The court sent it back to the district court and told them to apply strict scrutiny as per the 1st amendment. 9-1 decision with only Jackson dissenting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. Pp. 7–23

 

[Hafar1014]

A narrow opinion in the case, Chiles V. Salazar where a therapist challenged her talk therapy being considered conversion therapy. The court sent it back to the district court and told them to apply strict scrutiny as per the 1st amendment. 9-1 decision with only Jackson dissenting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

This is a terrible ruling. It means that conversion therapy which is banned by the APA and regarded as unethical means this harmful therapy can be used to try and convert homosexuals to heterosexual. It reverses the 1974 decision by the DSM that being gay is not a mental disorder.

 

[martybegan]

This is a terrible ruling. It means that conversion therapy which is banned by the APA and regarded as unethical means this harmful therapy can be used to try and convert homosexuals to heterosexual. It reverses the 1974 decision by the DSM that being gay is not a mental disorder.

No, it doesn't. It's limited to talk therapy about someone questioning their sexuality. The laws were written too broadly and some therapists believe that by the law once a person questions their sexuality, the only answer allowed by these laws is "you are gay"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is a terrible ruling. It means that conversion therapy which is banned by the APA and regarded as unethical means this harmful therapy can be used to try and convert homosexuals to heterosexual. It reverses the 1974 decision by the DSM that being gay is not a mental disorder.

That's not even close to true. The ruling actually separates merely talking about homosexuality from other forms of conversion therapy. Such discussions may be prohibited but the strict scrutiny test must be applied. Conversion therapy bans have not been overturned.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The craziest thing is in blue states where the GOVERNMENT will hide transition therapy from parents.

The government wants to FORCE you to allow your 8 year old boy to become a girl.

Just phucking bananas.

 

[JGalt]

A narrow opinion in the case, Chiles V. Salazar where a therapist challenged her talk therapy being considered conversion therapy. The court sent it back to the district court and told them to apply strict scrutiny as per the 1st amendment. 9-1 decision with only Jackson dissenting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

So now this licensed counselor has a "First Amendment right" to convince kids their gender is wrong with his "talk therapy." That sounds like some weird form of homosexual grooming.

 

[Hafar1014]

That's not even close to true. The ruling actually separates merely talking about homosexuality from other forms of conversion therapy. Such discussions may be prohibited but the strict scrutiny test must be applied. Conversion therapy bans have not been overturned.

Its worse
Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

 

[Hafar1014]

No, it doesn't. It's limited to talk therapy about someone questioning their sexuality. The laws were written too broadly and some therapists believe that by the law once a person questions their sexuality, the only answer allowed by these laws is "you are gay"

It allows mal practice and it violates the APA ethical standards. Your understanding is flawed. I am a psychotherapist. Conversion theory cant work and harms patients. Gender affirming care is child abuse. The first ethic is do no harm. Therapy isnt based on religion its based on science.

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

 

[martybegan]

So now this licensed counselor has a "First Amendment right" to convince kids their gender is wrong with his "talk therapy." That sounds like some weird form of homosexual grooming.

Actually the therapist was concerned that unless they just affirmed the child's confusion by saying "you are gay" automatically, they would fall afoul of the law.

The problem is the law assumed one viewpoint only, once a child questions their sexuality, they have to be gay, or at least bisexual.

 

[martybegan]

It allows mal practice and it violates the APA ethical standards. Your understanding is flawed. I am a psychotherapist. Conversion theory cant work and harms patients. Gender affirming care is child abuse. The first ethic is do no harm. Therapy isnt based on religion its based on science.

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

No, it doesn't. The law was overly broad and made the only viable outcome of any therapy "you are gay"

 

[struth]

Its worse
Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

Free speech trumps your feelings

 

[SeaMajor7]

If homo/trans drama fatigue isn't a thing, it is now.