The WA State Constitution Article 1 Section 5 states that "Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." So, no rights violations have been heaped upon Brian's pointy little head by the state. He just isn't allowed to practice his bullshit therapy on vulnerable LGBTQ+ youth in a clinical setting because it's against the law here. He is however, allowed to practice his vile "therapy" in non clinical settings ie. churches, private homes, private and parochial schools, etc. I'm hoping the state revokes his license to practice due to ethics violations. AG Bob Ferguson needs to dig deep into this scum's practice.
"Tingley, his lawyers say, "'believes that the sex each person receives at conception is not an accident or error but rather a gift from God'"
Now, now, Evan. You are being a bit harsh. I think that is an excellent argument. After all, I believe that the money each person puts in a bank is not an accident or error but rather a gift from God to me, and I should be able to walk into the bank and take everything I want.
I mean, do you really want to argue with what I think God wants??????
Please forgive me for offering a correction to your otherwise flawless jeremiad. Strictly speaking, "conversion therapy" is not an actual business like telephone psychics and sidewall sales and installation: it is a racket.
I think it is wrong and mean of them to have their sexual hangups publicly expressed by someone named Tingley when they know that I know it's wrong to make fun of someone's name and I'd never stoop so low as to do that no matter how tempting.
If these assholes can literally torture children as long as they have parental consent, does that mean I can start a BDSM highschool club as long as I stick a religion on it? Asking for a friend.
Tingley, his lawyers say, “believes that the sex each person receives at conception is not an accident or error but rather a gift from God” and that sexual relationships should only occur “between one man and one woman mutually committed through marriage.”
Substitute "the tooth fairy" for "God" and "a land contract" for "marriage" and you'll see how stupid it is to allow "beliefs" to govern how other people have to act.
If our gender is a gift from God, how come there are two of them? Is one better than the other? We know boys are better than girls so God must love me more.
but but but Genesis says Adam was created first and Eve was made from a spare rib of Adam's that he wasn't doing anything with, and Eve brought Original Sin down on their descendants.
Women are all the time rebelling against "because I said so" as a reason for restrictions on their business, as it was right from the beginning.
Evoking gifts from God in your legal arguments doesn’t carry the weight, even with our deranged scotus, that one would hope. But at least we know who they are writing for!
One side is discredited, by every reputable medical and mental health organization in the country, you partisan hack. It’s the same tired harangue that Elmo is trying with X. Yes, the deranged lunatics and Nazis are terrible in theory, but should we ignore ONE side of the debate (the hateful side)? We make laws and policy decisions based on reality, science and what is best for society, or we should. We don’t need a fringe nutter like Clarence Thomas fighting for the dangerous and discredited.
Free Speech, per the Constitution, only forbids Congress from passing laws that suppress free speech. It does not apply to individuals or to states. Washington literally cannot violate the Free Speech Amendment since Washington is not Congres.
Not disagreeing, but Washington is still not the federal Congress and is not governed by the Free Speech amendment prohibiting Congress from suppressing free speech.
I've already agreed with you on that point, of course the state of Washington is not Congress and it's not even worth arguing about that, a state is not congress. But the states are bound by the Bill of Rights.
no, it is not Congress, but as I commented previously, the Free Speech amendment DOES control the state of Washington. The 14th amendment says so, Due Process clause.
edit for clarity: case law interpreting the 14th amendment has resulted in application of the Bill of Rights to the states. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
But the form of due process varies from state to state. The states decide what it is. Things that are crimes in some states are not crimes in others. The Cantwell ruling specifically addressed religion.
The Free Speech amendment only controls Congress. That is precisely what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Washington is not Congress.
The 14th Amendment says this:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that this does not specify the exact privileges or immunities or what the due process is. The current Supreme Court seems to be okay with laws that restrict women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies. And those laws are very different from state to state.
You are trying to rewrite the Constitution to suit your own purposes.
Oh for pete's sake, I am not trying to rewrite the Constitution; I am merely stating a fact of which you are apparently unaware. The federal Bill of Rights is applicable to the States. The Constitution is not the last word; there is subsequent case law concerning application of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal congress. You were correct about Cantwell, which was not on point to your comment, my bad. Let's try this from google:
Amendment I
Guarantee against establishment of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).[26]
Guarantee of free exercise of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
Guarantee of freedom of speech
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York,[27] 268 U.S. 652 (1925) and Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
Guarantee of freedom of the press
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York,[27] 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
Guarantee of freedom of assembly
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
Guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).[28][29]
ADF? Why not ADFP? What do these creeps have against puppies? Defend the puppies.
I'm sure that Harlan Crow will have some comforting words for our man Clarence; maybe even a nice getaway junket to sooth his frazzled nerves.
Maybe Mr. Crow will also include Mr. Tingley on that junket to entertain Ol' Clarence.
Sometimes I wish conversion therapy worked. I would become a lesbian and not have to be attracted to men of my generation, who are not optimal.
As evil as we can be we still are handy when opening jars and carrying firewood..
Some of you are really quite excellent, but most of these are married.
and the rest are gay
The WA State Constitution Article 1 Section 5 states that "Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." So, no rights violations have been heaped upon Brian's pointy little head by the state. He just isn't allowed to practice his bullshit therapy on vulnerable LGBTQ+ youth in a clinical setting because it's against the law here. He is however, allowed to practice his vile "therapy" in non clinical settings ie. churches, private homes, private and parochial schools, etc. I'm hoping the state revokes his license to practice due to ethics violations. AG Bob Ferguson needs to dig deep into this scum's practice.
Anyone who purports to pray away the gay for pay is going to be found to be a molester and/or a rapist. They're all filth.
It is probably safer to assume > 97% are.
I prayed AND I got the covid vaccine and I am still not gay.
But I bet your 5G reception is AWESOME!
"Tingley, his lawyers say, "'believes that the sex each person receives at conception is not an accident or error but rather a gift from God'"
Now, now, Evan. You are being a bit harsh. I think that is an excellent argument. After all, I believe that the money each person puts in a bank is not an accident or error but rather a gift from God to me, and I should be able to walk into the bank and take everything I want.
I mean, do you really want to argue with what I think God wants??????
Evan, good piece but the headline unfortunately led me to wonder if Washington State was somehow promoting this nonsense. Otherwise, well done!
Dear Mr. Hurst;
Please forgive me for offering a correction to your otherwise flawless jeremiad. Strictly speaking, "conversion therapy" is not an actual business like telephone psychics and sidewall sales and installation: it is a racket.
Your humble and obt. svt.,
Revenant
I think it is wrong and mean of them to have their sexual hangups publicly expressed by someone named Tingley when they know that I know it's wrong to make fun of someone's name and I'd never stoop so low as to do that no matter how tempting.
That's what you get when you won't pay for Union writers.
If these assholes can literally torture children as long as they have parental consent, does that mean I can start a BDSM highschool club as long as I stick a religion on it? Asking for a friend.
Kids can be taught the correct way to be nailed to a cross.
Yes.
Isn't that called the football team?
Talk about the law? Great, we all can. Practice law? That is conduct which can be regulated.
Same idea with psychology.
Tingley can, and should, eat an entire pallet of heavily salted rat dicks.
It would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
Tingley, his lawyers say, “believes that the sex each person receives at conception is not an accident or error but rather a gift from God” and that sexual relationships should only occur “between one man and one woman mutually committed through marriage.”
Substitute "the tooth fairy" for "God" and "a land contract" for "marriage" and you'll see how stupid it is to allow "beliefs" to govern how other people have to act.
If our gender is a gift from God, how come there are two of them? Is one better than the other? We know boys are better than girls so God must love me more.
but but but Genesis says Adam was created first and Eve was made from a spare rib of Adam's that he wasn't doing anything with, and Eve brought Original Sin down on their descendants.
Women are all the time rebelling against "because I said so" as a reason for restrictions on their business, as it was right from the beginning.
God had no choice but to come down hard on Eve and let Adam off the hook. Remember, Adam used the unassailable argument, "The woman made me do it."
that one always works
Evoking gifts from God in your legal arguments doesn’t carry the weight, even with our deranged scotus, that one would hope. But at least we know who they are writing for!
One side is discredited, by every reputable medical and mental health organization in the country, you partisan hack. It’s the same tired harangue that Elmo is trying with X. Yes, the deranged lunatics and Nazis are terrible in theory, but should we ignore ONE side of the debate (the hateful side)? We make laws and policy decisions based on reality, science and what is best for society, or we should. We don’t need a fringe nutter like Clarence Thomas fighting for the dangerous and discredited.
Free Speech, per the Constitution, only forbids Congress from passing laws that suppress free speech. It does not apply to individuals or to states. Washington literally cannot violate the Free Speech Amendment since Washington is not Congres.
Washington may have its own freedom of speech law but that's up to the WA Supreme Court to rule on.
Not disagreeing, but Washington is still not the federal Congress and is not governed by the Free Speech amendment prohibiting Congress from suppressing free speech.
wrong again, see my other comment.
edit: sorry if that sounded snotty, was not intended.
The 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.
It still doesn't mean that the state of Washington is Congress, which is the entity controlled by the Free Speech amendment.
I've already agreed with you on that point, of course the state of Washington is not Congress and it's not even worth arguing about that, a state is not congress. But the states are bound by the Bill of Rights.
no, it is not Congress, but as I commented previously, the Free Speech amendment DOES control the state of Washington. The 14th amendment says so, Due Process clause.
edit for clarity: case law interpreting the 14th amendment has resulted in application of the Bill of Rights to the states. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
But the form of due process varies from state to state. The states decide what it is. Things that are crimes in some states are not crimes in others. The Cantwell ruling specifically addressed religion.
The Free Speech amendment only controls Congress. That is precisely what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Washington is not Congress.
The 14th Amendment says this:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that this does not specify the exact privileges or immunities or what the due process is. The current Supreme Court seems to be okay with laws that restrict women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies. And those laws are very different from state to state.
You are trying to rewrite the Constitution to suit your own purposes.
Oh for pete's sake, I am not trying to rewrite the Constitution; I am merely stating a fact of which you are apparently unaware. The federal Bill of Rights is applicable to the States. The Constitution is not the last word; there is subsequent case law concerning application of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal congress. You were correct about Cantwell, which was not on point to your comment, my bad. Let's try this from google:
Amendment I
Guarantee against establishment of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).[26]
Guarantee of free exercise of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
Guarantee of freedom of speech
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York,[27] 268 U.S. 652 (1925) and Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
Guarantee of freedom of the press
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York,[27] 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
Guarantee of freedom of assembly
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).
Guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).[28][29]
now, as Stroke would say:
-30-
True, plus there's a free speech guarantee in the WA state constitution.
Does it apply to the federal Congress? If not, it's not relevant to Free Speech as described in the Constitution.