The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy,” a practice aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor from Colorado, who argues that the law infringes on her free speech rights under the First Amendment.
Chiles, a practicing Christian, believes that people thrive when they align with what she describes as “God’s design,” which includes adhering to one’s biological sex. She claims that the law prevents her from assisting clients who seek Christian-based counseling to reconcile their faith with their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Colorado’s law, enacted in 2019, prohibits licensed mental health providers from engaging in conversion therapy with minors. The state maintains that the law regulates professional conduct rather than speech, aiming to protect young people from harmful practices.
Conversion therapy has been widely discredited by medical and mental health professionals for its ineffectiveness and potential harm, particularly to minors.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battles between religious rights and LGBT protections. The court is expected to hear the case during its next term, starting in October.
Colorado is among over two dozen states and the District of Columbia that have banned or restricted conversion therapy for minors. The challenge by Chiles is supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group known for advocating against LGBT protections.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has expressed commitment to defending the law, stating that it is “humane, smart, and appropriate” for protecting young people from harmful practices. Democratic Governor Jared Polis, who signed the bill into law, has called conversion therapy “a tortuous practice” discredited by medical professionals.
The case reflects broader tensions between religious freedoms and LGBT rights, with the Supreme Court having previously taken an expansive view of religious interests in several high-profile rulings.
Read more:
