Religion vs. LGBTQ+ rights: Supreme Court weighs 'conversion therapy' bans for minors

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Religion vs. LGBTQ+ rights: Supreme Court weighs 'conversion therapy' bans for minors

The issue of banning 'therapy' to make a gay or lesbian person straight has reemerged as the Supreme Court has become more conservative and receptive to appeals dealing with religious freedom.

John Fritze
USA TODAY
Published 5:14 a.m. ET Oct. 9, 2023 | Updated 12:01 p.m. ET Oct. 9, 2023

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh a ban on “conversion therapy” ? the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity ? in an appeal that tests the court's appetite for engaging this term in the legal battle between religion and LGBTQ+ rights. ... Long discredited and already banned for minors in about half of U.S. states, the practice of using ''treatment'' to make a gay or lesbian person straight has reemerged as the Supreme Court has become more conservative and receptive to appeals dealing with religious freedom. Opponents say the practice can involve electrical shocks and nausea-inducing drugs as well as psychoanalysis and counseling.

Brian Tingley, a licensed family counselor in Washington state, is challenging the state's ban on the practice for people under 18, claiming it violates his free speech and religious rights. The law, he told the Supreme Court this year, "forbids him from speaking, treating his professional license as a license for government censorship."

{snip}

Opponents of the practice say states have banned it for minors because it increases the risk of depression and suicide for LGBTQ+ young people. Washington's law doesn't apply to churches or religious groups, only to therapists who are licensed – and regulated – by the state. ... "This is a dangerous practice," said Laurel Stine, chief policy officer for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. "The Supreme Court has not taken up any of these challenges before, and we are confident that, if they do, we will win."

The justices were set to discuss the case privately Friday and could announce as soon as Tuesday whether they will decide it or allow a lower court ruling against Tingley to stand.

{snip}

[70sEraVet]

1. I'm afraid the current 'freedom lovers' on this court will be more than happy ....

to sacrifice a few children, in their goal to liberate America from the godless masses.

[Freethinker65]

2. To be consistent with insane lower court ruling shouldn't a ban be ok

Especially if the ban is for minors only, because then it isn't really a ban but a waiting period. (This was the argument made to allow '"bans" of puberty blockers for minors, which of course is ridiculous as post-minors have already undergone puberty).