The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that ban the discredited practice.
An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”
So, telling someone they aren’t who/what they think they are is ok? Not just telling them but pushing a program of persuasion to change their mind.
They’re going to overturn hate speech laws next. And all advertising restrictions.
Someone needs to start a trans conversion therapy program that tries to make people trans. See how fast that gets banned.
Right? The gymnastics to support conversion therapy on one hand and on the other claim books in the library are making people gay is absurd.
Gross.
This is the same sort of ruling that would argue you can’t ban false advertising. How long before some homeopath sues the FTC and FDA for stopping them from claiming health benefits? Won’t be long now till we get new fabulous snake oil cancer cures because the first amendment protects quacks from lying (so long as they “sincerely believe” the lie).
Not anywhere remotely similar, just something I was reminded of. Unilever sued Hampton Creek for selling a sandwich spread they called “mayo”. I don’t know the result of the lawsuit but it came down to some obscure FDA rule saying mayonnaise must contain egg. The Hampton Creek product did not. https://apnews.com/article/-----e836f82fe258403a9d4b39a118d21793
Because the USA is a theocracy where the morals of a religion are held higher than the morals and laws of democratic values such as equality and tolerance, just like Iran and Ruzzia :D Enlightment anyone? No?
Some religious schools like reformatory and Islamic schools carry out duplicate messages: they teach children democratic values such as equality and tolerance, but place religious views next to it that are at odds with these values. This leads to confusion and can reinforce discriminatory ideas, particularly about homosexuality, gender roles and Jewish people.
Schools are required to teach children about democratic values and to comply with them in practice. But on the basis of Article 23 of the Constitution (in the Netherlands at least), schools also have the freedom to place religious messages next to it. According to experts, this leads to “double messages” that are difficult to follow for children, and in some cases are at odds with democratic values.
For example, children now learn that you can decide for yourself how to live your life, but also that they have to obey God. And they learn about the theory of evolution, but also that according to religion it is not correct, and that the world is actually only 6000 years old.
Reformatory schools teach about equality, but in addition, the view that the man is “the head” and the woman is “submissive” to him. It should be cautious about leadership roles.
The Dutch Ministry of Education says that it is “inevitable” that fundamental rights are chafing with each other here, and that democracy also means that children learn to deal with this. Experts call this “naive.”
Renowned theologian Abdullahi An-Na’im says a religious message will always dominate. According to him, there is no level playing field between a religious message and democratic values. “Religion has a psychological and emotional lead in children’s upbringing,” says An-Na’im. “With deep roots in communities, where the state has no reach whatsoever.”
Do we want a multicultural model in which we think very differently about freedoms? Or do we want to work towards a model in which not only equality, but really equality, for example between men and women, is seen as a fundamental starting point? In the latter case, it means that we need to make more work of that. CLEARLY
Dutch News anchor Nieuwsuur has investigated this in the netherlands: The clashing messages in religious education
https://nos.nl/collectie/14003I don’t really get how two of the liberal justices concurred with this. Therapy is a licensed profession, and as with all licensed professions, it comes with restrictions, including on the things that can be said while providing licensed services.
The counselor can spend all day telling people they should convert to the one true faith of the orange monster. She is just not allowed to tell kids they are better off not being themselves when she is professionally counseling them.
I would argue that if Colorado (or any jurisdiction) did not ban a practice known to be harmful, it would be liable for the consequences, too. It would be like the FDA knowing that vaccine save lives and deciding to discourage their use. Oh, wait, I forgot we are in this timeline…
In short, beautiful lemmings, be brave, be bold, be gay, be trans, just don’t forget to be current on your vaxxes. Every time a lemming gets a jab, there is one more clot forming in the arteries of the one that shall not be named!
Not party line. 8:1. Two “opposing” justices agreed.
Jackson was the sole dissenter.
This is yet another brick in the wall for “the Supreme Court has become a core part of the problem”.
Child abuse is not free speech.
Apparently some people pay for that which is awful.
Yup. Also see: troubled teen industry
Most parents knew what went on in these places, perhaps not to the fullest extent but at the very minimum abusive tactics commonly referred to as ‘tough love’ or being ‘scared straight’. And when kids complained or reported abuse, it was double-down time because it was seen as evidence of it working.
That shit is totally evil, our society is sick for allowing it. Those camps need to be shit down and the parents who paid for them prosecuted
