jump to navigation

Supreme Court Rules California Law Banning “Gay Conversion Therapy” Constitutional May 3, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.

So you have freedom of speech and worship, comrade, unless it offends against one of the most favored groups of the glorious people’s coalition.  In that case, take your Christofascism and shove it, bible-humper.

h/t to reader Camper for the link.  This is a really big decision that’s gotten precious little coverage.  From this priests and others could easily be sued for giving sermons against the evils of sodomy, if some aggrieved sodomite took that to be a call to conversion from their lifestyle.  This ruling could easily pave the way for Canadian-style intrusion into what priests and preachers can and cannot say (which, of course, has entirely to do with whether leftists find it objectionable or not.  Big surprise):

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact California’s ban on “gay conversion” therapy aimed at turning youths under age 18 away from homosexuality, rejecting a Christian minister’s challenge to the law asserting it violates religious rights. [This essentially says to parents: you have no right to seek treatment for the moral and mental disorders of your minor child if such treatment offends against the sexular pagan zeitgeist.  The arrogance is breathtaking.]

The justices, turning away a challenge to the 2012 law for the second time in three years, let stand a lower court’s ruling that it was constitutional and neither impinged upon free exercise of religion nor impacted the activities of clergy members. [Even though clergy may well be involved in the process.  We are in “emanations from the penumbras” territory again.  And once again having a majority of Republican-nominated justices mean nothing.  We are a nation ruled by an unelected, tyrannical and impious oligarchy]

The law prohibits state-licensed mental health counselors, including psychologists and social workers, from offering therapy to change sexual orientation in minors. The Supreme Court in 2014 refused to review the law after an appeals court rejected claims that the ban infringed on free speech rights under U.S. Constitution’s the First Amendment.

California outlawed gay conversion therapy in 2012, calling it ineffective and harmful. New Jersey, Illinois, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and the District of Columbia have similar laws on the books, according to the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The Supreme Court turned away a challenge to New Jersey’s law in 2015.

Gay conversion therapy methods range from counseling, hypnosis and dating-skill training to aversive techniques that induce pain or electric shocks in response to same-sex erotic images, according to California officials. Such treatments stem from a belief that homosexuality is a mental illness, a view that has been discredited for decades, the state said in court papers. [“Discredited” through an entirely political coup at the APA session in 1973, which sodomites themselves gleefully describe hijacking and turning to their ends after a campaign of serious intimidation. As for so-called electroshock therapy, has there ever been a single documented instance of its being used for this purpose?  Or is it simply the product of the fevered imagination of dedicated (and paid) advocates for the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, presenting a scary if highly implausible “threat” to drum up sympathy for their cause?]

Lead plaintiff Donald Welch, an ordained minister and licensed family therapist, oversees counseling at Skyline Wesleyan Church, an evangelical Christian church in the San Diego area that believes sexuality belongs only in a marriage between a man and a woman. [You know, like GOD COMMANDS.]

Welch, along with a Catholic psychiatrist and a man who underwent conversion therapy and now aspires to perform it on others, sued the state claiming the law is unconstitutional. [A Catholic on the front lines defending the moral order?  Must be a layperson.  I kid, but not much.]

After their free speech challenge failed, the plaintiffs’ pressed their claim that the ban violates their right to freely exercise their religion. Last October, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their arguments.

Of course it did.  Enforcing immigration laws on the books for decades, and non-controversially endorsed by Bill Clinton in 1996, is unconstitutional to the 9th circus, but denying millions of people their right to worship, parent, and speak on an increasing array of matters IS totally constitutional.  Gotcha.  In other words, whatever leftists want, the 9th Circuit will provide, no matter how much they have to disfigure the Constitution to oblige.

As Camper said, this is a case with potentially huge implications. No wonder it’s been buried by the fake news media.

I’m sure the USCCB will be taking a true leadership position on this offense against God and the rights of the Church any second now.  Right after I sell that beachfront property in Kansas I own…….


1. Richard Malcolm - May 3, 2017

Just to clarify a point: What SCOTUS did here was to deny cert. That allows the 9th Circuit ruling upholding the California law to stand. That’s bad, certainly, but it is not as bad as a ruling on the merits by the Supreme Court that sets national precedent on Free Exercise case law. That would affect far more than the 9th Circuit, and be harder to overturn.

Saying it could be worse is not much consolation here, obviously. But I think this underlines the importance of judicial nominations.

Tantumblogo - May 3, 2017

You are correct, but a refusal to hear and issue a judgment to a lower court decision both lets that judgment stand, and will be used as precedent in cases in other parts of the country. And given that similar laws exist in other federal appeals court districts, I think the effect will be broader than just the 9th Circuit.

c matt - May 5, 2017

There is a bit of strategery (thanks W!) that goes in to denying cert. The 9th Circus opinion could be referred to by other courts, but it is only binding in the 9th Circuit (the least respected). I do not see, for example, the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi I think) using it for much more than toilet paper. The states that do fall under the 9th Circus and those outside that would follow them would probably go that way anyway (e.g., New Yawk, Taxachussettes, ill-in-noise).

Could be the justices who might want to strike down such a statute knew they did not have the numbers, and figured this would limit the damage. It would take four to grant, and they likely figured that is all they could muster to vote for reversal, thus one shy.

Richard Malcolm - May 5, 2017

Right. You may well be right.

It might be worth revisiting if, say, Kennedy and Ginsburg are replaced by more conservative justices over the next year or two.

2. Canon212 Update: FrancisChurch Remains a Restless Eunich, With No Life and No Future – The Stumbling Block - May 4, 2017


3. not a lawyer - May 5, 2017

“The law prohibits state-licensed mental health counselors, including psychologists and social workers, from offering therapy to change sexual orientation in minors.”

Would this work in reverse and prevent state-licensed professionals from “suggesting” to straight minors that they might be otherwise inclined ?

c matt - May 5, 2017

If the quoted statement is accurate, then the religious liberty ground is probably less forceful. A non-licensed (i.e., not licensed as a mental health counselor) minister, for example, could still offer spiritual counseling against homosexuality. Makes the infringement argument more difficult to establish.

Camper - May 8, 2017

This is still an infringement against the religious beliefs of counselors. It also puts Catholics in the ghetto, which is evil!

4. c matt - May 5, 2017

The problem is basing the arguments on free speech and religious freedom. What they should have argued is that gay conversion therapy must be legal to prevent back-alley and coathanger conversions, which kill millions of gays every year. Gay conversion therapy needs to be safe, legal and rare, blah blah blah. That seems to work better with the SCOTUS.

Another point – if gay is not a mental illness, then conversion is not a health care procedure – it is merely a choice. What happened to CHOICE UBER ALLES?

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: