288 Comments
User's avatar
JenTheFriend's avatar

Why does an anti-LGBTQ "therapist" have a right to free speech, but Queer people don't have a free speech right to live their authentic selves?

Zyxomma's avatar

Ta, Robyn. Kaley Chiles does not understand her role as a therapist. Yes, she's a fraud.

Nemo's avatar

I see. Quackery is now free speech. Seems about right when HHS is run by Brainworm Bobby and who knows how many other frauds and griftera he's dragged in from various dumps. The Dotard's assignment from Putes is to sandbag the federal government with crooks and idiots. Starting with himself.

beb's avatar

The sin goes back to Citizens United when the court ruled that money was speech and could not be regulated.

eo's avatar

This was the best analysis of that decision that I've read.

Mommadillo's avatar

Personally, I absolutely consider it an “essential” function of government to prevent the abuse of LGBTQ children. I do understand, however, that the country that actually attempted to legalize torture a little over 20 years ago might have other ideas.

What A Debacle's avatar

1st amendment of the Constitution is not your ally here, Robyn.

Hank Napkin's avatar

"For you are not of the body, and they are not of the body"?

Bitter Scribe's avatar

So if God tells me that eating ice cream cures cancer, I can establish Bitter Scribe's Ice Cream and Oncology Clinic Parlors and never suffer any consequences?

bcb's avatar
Apr 2Edited

In 2016, a psychiatrist asked me if I was going to kill myself. I said "no," but he lied and told other people I said "yes." He also tried to edit my records to show I had made the appointment because of "active s-word ideation" when it was actually about something totally unrelated.

He is still employed at the same medical practice today because others moved to protect him, and I didn't have a recording to prove I had said "no."

Now I wonder, even if I *did* have a recording, could he argue that accusing someone else of s-word ideation is "speech" and therefore he's allowed to do it? Especially if he targets queer people and says his "political belief" is that queer people kill themselves?

Tasner Hasenpfeffer's avatar

It will always be wild to me that child abuse in this country is a protected right.

Tasner Hasenpfeffer's avatar

𝑰𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒂𝒓 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝑾𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒐𝒏’𝒔 𝒃𝒂𝒏 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒆 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒔 𝒂𝒈𝒐.

So what changed during that time?

Michael's avatar

Excellent essay Robyn! We can easily imagine a country run by gays (not a bad idea actually) where the government and courts sanctionsl a hetero-conversion therapy and the harm and damage that would cause to minors. It's absurd that these charlatans are still around.

Brian McCurdy's avatar

What struck me reading the majority opinion and liberals' concurrence was how bloodless they both are. These are kids who face great harm. Only Justice Jackson's dissent really acknowledges that.

Bagels of Doom's avatar

SCOTUS: Making torture great again.

jte's avatar

IANAL, but is it possible that Kagan and Sotomayor here saw a way to also protect GAC providers going forward? A number of states have either passed or teed up legislation that would make it illegal to even tell a minor there's such a thing as a trans identity, gender dysphoria, or refer them for GAC, even if it's what the parents also want.