A pending Supreme Court decision on whether states can ban conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth represents a pivotal moment in the struggle against Christian nationalism, said Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“Either you believe in pluralistic democracy, or you are for uprooting it so certain people can have bigger rights and be considered more American than other people,” she said.
Justices heard oral arguments Oct. 7 in Chiles v. Salazar, a lawsuit filed in 2022 by counselor Kaley Chiles challenging Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy for children. The treatment is an attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of people through behavioral modification and religious instruction.
Kaley Chiles
Chiles claims the ordinance impinges on her First Amendment right to free speech by prohibiting her from expressing deeply held religious views during therapy sessions. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in March after lower courts refused to pause enforcement of the law while litigation continued.
During oral arguments, Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson said the statute is a “bipartisan law passed by 25 different states” to ban a particular treatment considered by experts to cause “great risk of harm” to patients, SCOTUSblog reported.
But the court “appeared largely sympathetic” to the counselor’s claims during the hearing. Justice Samuel Alito dismissed Colorado’s explanation the law was based on widely accepted professional standards, suggesting such guidance can be influenced by ideology.
“Alito cited an era in which medical professionals believed that children with Down syndrome should be placed in an institution shortly after birth,” the blog reported. “Alito also seemed convinced that the Colorado law amounted to discrimination against Chiles based on the views that she wants to express during therapy, calling it ‘blatant viewpoint discrimination.’”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson urged the case be sent back to the lower courts for full consideration of the medical and constitutional issues it raises.
Rachel Laser
But Chiles’ attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Christian nationalist shadow networks that fund them, want to establish constitutional exemptions for the religious beliefs and practices of white conservative evangelicals, Laser said. “This would set such a dangerous precedent for all of us. Imagine the court saying that you, as a health care provider licensed by the state, are not bound by state standards of care because you claim to have a special religious or moral work-around of that standard of care.”
Laser said the case is similar to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a 2022 Supreme Court decision allowing a graphic designer to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking wedding websites. It is also akin to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 2018 ruling that a baker had the right to refuse baking wedding cakes for same-sex couples. In both cases the court held those refusals constituted freedom of religion and speech.
The 303 Creative and Masterpiece Cakeshop rulings weaponized the First Amendment to discriminate against LGBTQ people in business settings and could conceivably be used against people of color, Laser added. “When you allow an individual or a business licensed by the state an exemption to a law passed to protect vulnerable people, you are granting them special favor and saying their religious freedom matters more than the rest of us.”
Now they are trying to carve out similar exemptions in the medical arena, Laser added.
“We have the state saying their experts that regulate this industry concluded these therapy practices harm children in a very real way. What kind of a society are we if we allow state-licensed professionals to have a religious exemption, or a free speech exemption, because they claim this conduct is speech?”
An amicus brief filed by Americans United, the Alliance of Baptists, the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, Interfaith Alliance and numerous other Christian and religious groups argued against granting that exemption in Chiles v. Salazar.
The claim that Colorado’s law infringes on free-speech rights is untrue while a ruling in favor of Chiles would cause real harm to young LGBTQ people treated by conversion therapy, that brief states.
“Those of us who are Christians from various denominations believe that all people are created in God’s image and are worthy of dignity, safety and love,” the brief argues. “We stand against conversion therapy, which we believe is extremely harmful to individuals’ well-being. The deeply damaging practice runs counter to the will of God and the scriptures that call us simply to love each child of God.”
Related articles:
Stakes are high as Supreme Court takes up conversion therapy case
Here’s why yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing matters | Opinion by Jonathan Greer
Review of research underscores harms of conversion therapy and importance of family affirmation
Undoing the damage of conversion therapy | Opinion by Amber Wylde
Al Mohler’s curious defense of conversion therapy | Analysis by Alan Bean
Panelists make the Christian case against conversion therapy: It harms people