October 8, 2025 • 15 mins
A counselor in Colorado claims her “sincerely held beliefs” give her the right to counsel LGBTQ+ minors out of who they are. The state says that’s harmful pseudoscience. She says “First Amendment.” And now, the Supreme Court will decide.
Host Mike Smithgall breaks down Chiles v. Salazar, exposing the tactics behind the legal argument, the misuse of science by religious law groups, and the broader threat to professional standards.
Evidence versus belief. Law versus faith. Protection versus permission.
That’s today’s Mike Drop.
Visit us at www.Atheistville.com for more content from Mike Smithgall and the Atheistville team
📺 Subscribe on YouTube: youtube.com/@atheistville
💬 Want to be a guest or submit a question? Drop us a note at CONTACT
Check us out at: https://atheistville.buzzsprout.com
🔥 New episodes weekly from Atheistville — Mike Drop with Mike Smithgall, Ask an Atheist, and The Unholy Roundtable
© 2025 Atheistville Media
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
There's a counselor in Colorado who believes she can
counsel someone out of being gayor trans.
The state said no, that'sharmful pseudoscience, and you
can't practice it on minors.
She said, First amendment.
And now the Supreme Court willdecide whether sincerely held
belief is a license to harmchildren.
(00:20):
This isn't about religion versusgovernment, it's about
protection versus permission.
I'm Mike Smithgall, and this istoday's Mic Drop.
Now, let's be clear, conversiontherapy exists because of
religion.
Full stop.
Without theology, there is nodisorder to cure, no brokenness
to fix.
(00:41):
The entire premise depends onreligious doctrines that say
LGBTQ is sinful, wrong, oragainst God's wills.
And you know what?
You're allowed to believe thatsincerely, deeply, with your
whole heart.
What you're not allowed to do isstrap that belief to a therapy
license and call traumatreatment.
(01:01):
This is Childs versus Salazar,and it's not just about one case
in Colorado.
For over a decade, states havebeen passing laws to ban
conversion therapy for minors.
Twin states and Washington, D.C.
now have these protections onthe books.
The Supreme Court has been askedto hear challenges to these laws
before and has consistentlyrefused.
(01:22):
So what's changed?
The court's composition changed.
That's clearly the issue here.
With a 6-3 conservativemajority, the Alliance Defending
Freedom saw an opening, and theyengineered a case designed to
give this court exactly what itwanted: a chance to redefine
religious freedom as a right toignore professional standards.
(01:43):
Now again, this isn't just aboutwhether faith can override
evidence.
It's about whether belief canexempt you from professional
standards, and whether theSupreme Court will let religion
become a loophole in childprotection law.
Let's start with what's actuallybefore the court.
In Colorado, licensed therapistsare prohibited from attempting
to change or suppress a minor'ssexual orientation or gender
(02:06):
identity.
Kaylee Childs, a Christiancounselor backed by the Alliance
Defending Freedom, ADF, claimsthat law violates her First
Amendment rights.
Her argument, therapy is speech,not conduct.
And because her speech isreligiously motivated, the state
can't regulate it.
Colorado's response, this isn'tabout speech.
(02:27):
It's about protecting minorsfrom a discredited, demonstrably
harmful practice.
The Supreme Court heard oralarguments today on October 7,
2025, and a decision is expectedby the summer of 2026.
Now here's the problem with thatargument.
It ignores science.
Decades of research showconversion therapy doesn't work
(02:49):
and causes measurablepsychological harm, anxiety,
depression, PTSD, suicide risk.
The American PsychologicalAssociate, the American Medical
Associate, the American Academyof Pediatrics have all issued
condemnations.
There is no credible evidencethat sexual orientation or
gender identity can be changedthrough counseling.
(03:11):
So let's talk about what thatharm actually looks like.
Survivors of conversion therapyreport being subjected to
aversion techniques, being shownimages while receiving electric
shocks, by being forced to snaprubber bands against their
wrists while thinking aboutsame-sex attraction, being told
their identity makes thembroken, disgusting, and
abomination.
(03:32):
The statistics are devastating.
LGBTQ youth who undergoconversion therapy are more than
twice as likely to attemptsuicide compared to those who
don't.
Maybe three times as more likelyto use illegal drugs, more than
twice as likely to experiencesevere depression.
These aren't just numbers.
These are kids whose familiestold them they needed to be
(03:55):
fixed.
Kids who internalize the messagethat something fundamental about
who they are is so wrong itrequires intervention.
And when that interventionfails, because it always fails,
they're left believing they'rethe failure.
But here's the deal ADF knowsthis.
In their Supreme Court petition,ADF cited a 2016 study by a
(04:18):
sexuality researcher, Dr.
Lisa Diamond and law professorClifford Roski.
But here's what they didn't tellthe court.
Diamond and Rosky's studyactually condemns conversion
therapy as harmful andineffective.
ADF cherry-picked quotes fromtheir work, leaving out the
parts where the researchersexplicitly said conversion
(04:38):
therapy causes, and I'm puttingin quotes, elevated rates of
depression, anxiety, andsuicide.
That conclusion, the actualthesis of the paper, was on the
same page that ADF quoted from.
They just left it out.
When Diamond and Roski found outthey were furious, Roski told
The Guardian, it's deceptive.
Lawyers owe a duty of candor tothe court.
(04:59):
They cannot offer falseevidence.
They claim our work supportsconversion therapy when our work
clearly and specificallycondemns conversion therapy on
the same page they're citing.
He added, This is the mostupsetting use of my scholarship
that has ever happened in mycareer.
It's upsetting because this isletally dangerous to LGBTQ plus
(05:20):
kids.
Diamond said, that's what'sdiabolical about them using me.
They know they aremisrepresenting my views.
It also feels very hard tocounter because it's not coming
from facts or reason.
It's coming from animus.
Both researchers filed a briefwith the Supreme Court to
correct the record.
Their brief wasn't optional.
It was necessary because ADF'spetition to the highest court in
(05:44):
the land was built on afoundation of lies.
This isn't a good faithdisagreement about evidence.
It's a legal strategy built ondeliberate deception.
And that deception mattersbecause the law ADF is
challenging already carves outprotections for religious
speech.
Conversion therapy isreligiously motivated.
That's not an attack, it's afact.
(06:04):
The industry exists becausecertain conservative Christians
and Orthodox traditions teachthat LGBTQ identities are sinful
or disordered.
But here's what matters.
But here is some good news.
Not all religious people agree.
Many Christians, Jews, Muslims,and people of faith oppose
conversion therapy.
The United Church of Christ,Reformed Judaism, an Episcopal
(06:28):
Church, and countless faithleaders have condemned it as
harmful and unethical.
Religious belief isn'tmonolithic.
What we're talking about is aspecific subset of religious
practice, one that harmsvulnerable kids.
Now, here's something crucialthat often gets left out of this
conversation.
Colorado law already includes areligious exemption.
(06:48):
People engaged in the practiceof religious ministry are
explicitly exempt from the ban.
I'm going to say that again.
People engaged in the practiceof religious ministry are
explicitly exempt from the ban.
If you're a pastor, a priest, arabbi, an imam, if you're
providing religious counselingas part of ministry, you can
(07:10):
still counsel people accordingto your religious beliefs about
sexuality and gender.
The law doesn't touch that.
What it does regulate islicensed mental health
professionals, therapists,counselors, psychologists,
people who hold state-issuedlicense that come with
professional and ethicalobligations.
(07:31):
So when ADF argues that the lawsilences religious speech,
they're being dishonest.
Religious speech is protected.
What's regulated is professionalmedical practice.
Childs isn't being told shecan't believe homosexuality is a
sin.
She's not being told she can'ttalk about her beliefs.
She's not even being preventedfrom referring clients to
(07:54):
religious counselors who shareher views.
She's just being told she can'tuse her professional license to
practice a discredited, harmfultherapy on minors.
And religious liberty has neverbeen absolute.
You can't refuse chemotherapyfor your kid and call it faith.
You can't perform surgery in thechurch basement and call it
(08:14):
ministry.
You can't withhold insulin froma diabetic child because you
believe prayer over medicine.
Religious freedom ends whereharm to others begins.
Conversion therapy crosses thatline, and no amount of theology
makes that okay.
But what do you think?
Where should the law draw theline between sincerely held
belief and a demonstrablyharmful professional practice?
(08:37):
Hey, and by the way, whileyou're there, if you appreciate
this kind of secular analysis onthe collision of faith and law,
please make sure you're asubscriber.
I really do appreciate it.
It helps us grow, and it's theeasiest way to support this type
of work.
All right, let's get back to theshow.
Therapists aren't podcasters.
They're not YouTubers like me.
They're licensed professionalsoperating under standards of
(08:59):
care that demand adherence toevidence and ethics.
When a therapist speaks in asession, that's not
free-floating expression, it'sprofessional conduct.
Courts have consistently allowedlimits on professional speech
when public health is at stake.
A surgeon can't claim freespeech to ignore sterilization
protocols.
(09:20):
A pharmacist can't prescribeivermectin to COVID and call it
religious conviction.
A therapist can't practicediscredited methods and hide
behind the First Amendment.
And why?
Because licenses come withstandards.
That's the deal.
When you get a medical license,a therapy license, a
pharmaceutical license, you'reentering into a contract with
(09:42):
the state.
The state gives you legalauthority to practice.
In exchange, you agree to followevidence-based standards,
professional ethics, andregulations designed to protect
the public health.
You don't get to pick and choosewhich standards apply to you
based on your personal belief.
If you could, the entireframework collapses.
(10:02):
If religious speech suddenlyoverrides that framework,
professional regulation itselfbecomes optional.
And that's the goal here.
Not just to protect conversiontherapy, but to blow open a
legal pathway where sincerelyheld belief exempts you from any
rule you don't like.
This case isn't happening in avacuum.
(10:23):
It's part of a larger strategy.
Use the First Amendment to carvereligious exemptions out of
neutral laws.
We've seen it with religiousemployers denying contraception
coverage, forcing beliefs intohealthcare decisions.
We've seen it with businessesrefusing LGBTQ customers,
rebranding discrimination asconscious.
(10:43):
Now we're seeing it in licensedtherapy, making pseudoscience a
protective belief.
If this works, the playbookextends.
Let me walk you through oneexample of how this logic
spreads.
Imagine a pharmacist whobelieves hormonal birth control
is morally wrong and it's a formof abortion.
Under current law, thatpharmacist can't refuse to fill
(11:04):
a prescription just because oftheir personal beliefs.
They're licensed professionalswith a duty to serve the public.
But if ADF wins this case,here's the argument.
They would say dispensingmedication involves explaining
how to use it and when to takeit, the potential side effects,
that speech.
And if my religious beliefs saythis medication is immoral, you
(11:26):
can't compel my speech by makingme provide it.
That's a First Amendment issue.
Again, that's what they wouldsay.
The same logic applies to asurgeon who believes certain
procedures violate God's law.
To a therapist who thinksantidepressants are unnecessary
because prayer is sufficient.
To a medical professional whorefuses to treat transgender
(11:47):
patients because they believegender dysphoria isn't real.
They'll claim it's my sincerelyheld religious belief and you
can't regulate my speech.
It's simply medicalmisinformation packaged as
ministry.
The question isn't just aboutconversion therapy, it's about
whether faith becomes apermission slip to ignore
professional standards whenvulnerable people, especially
(12:08):
kids, are in your care.
So let's zoom out and look atwhat hangs in the balance.
As mentioned, 23 states andWashington, D.C.
have laws banning conversiontherapy for minors.
That's more than half thecountry.
If the Supreme Court strikesdown Colorado law, all those
protections could fail.
And we're talking about millionsof LGBTQ kids, kids who are
(12:31):
already at elevated risk forbullying and family rejection,
homelessness, and suicide, theywould be losing that one legal
protection that says licensedprofessionals can't subject them
to pseudoscience.
And it's not just conversiontherapy laws at risk, medical
boards, psychology licensingbodies, social work
associations, they all haveethical codes that prohibit
(12:53):
harmful practices.
If religious speech can overridethese codes, professional
self-regulation becomesmeaningless.
The American PsychologicalAssociation is watching this
case.
The American Medical Associationis watching this case.
State medical boards arewatching this case because they
know if the Supreme Court rulesthat professional speech
(13:14):
protections overrideevidence-based regulation, their
ability to maintain ethicalstandards collapses.
And beyond conversion therapy,other cases are waiting in the
wings.
Gender-affirming care bans,abortion counseling
restrictions, vaccine mandatechallenges.
All of them are watching Childsversus Salazar to see if
(13:34):
sincerely held belief becomesthe magic phrase that overrides
any regulation you don't like.
The stakes here aren'thypothetical.
They're immediate.
They're vast.
And they're about far more thanone counselor in Colorado.
The Supreme Court hasn't ruledyet.
Again, this is happening today.
We won't get a decision forprobably many months.
(13:57):
But here's what's alreadydecided: conversion therapy is a
fraud.
It doesn't work, it causes harm.
And every major medicalorganization in the country
agrees with that.
The only question left iswhether nine justices will call
it that, or will they sanctifyit under the banner of religious
freedom?
All right, that's my two cents.
(14:17):
Unblessed, unfiltered, asalways.
Agree or disagree, that's what Igot for you today.
So when the Supreme Courtdecision comes down, probably in
the summer of 2026, we'll knowwhether evidence still matters
in American law or whethersincerely held belief is now a
free pass from regulation.
Until then, remember this.
You can believe whatever youwant about who people should
(14:40):
love or how they live.
But the moment you turn thatbelief into a business, slap a
license on it, and practice iton kids, you're not exercising
freedom.
You're inflicting harm.
And no court, no courtwhatsoever, should call that
protected speech.
I will, of course, keep an eyeon this, and when a verdict
comes back, I will make sure Ibring that to you.
But once again, I'm Mike SmithGall, and this was today's Mic
(15:03):
Drop.
Hey, I really hope you enjoyedtoday's show.
Before you go, make sure youlike and subscribe to the show
and tell a friend.
It really helps us grow.
If you'd like more great contentfrom us, check out our blog at
atheistville.com.
Until we talk again, rememberreason and compassion go a very
long way.
There's a counselor in Colorado who believes she can
counsel someone out of being gayor trans.
The state said no, that'sharmful pseudoscience, and you
can't practice it on minors.
She said, First amendment.
And now the Supreme Court willdecide whether sincerely held
belief is a license to harmchildren.
(00:20):
This isn't about religion versusgovernment, it's about
protection versus permission.
I'm Mike Smithgall, and this istoday's Mic Drop.
Now, let's be clear, conversiontherapy exists because of
religion.
Full stop.
Without theology, there is nodisorder to cure, no brokenness
to fix.
(00:41):
The entire premise depends onreligious doctrines that say
LGBTQ is sinful, wrong, oragainst God's wills.
And you know what?
You're allowed to believe thatsincerely, deeply, with your
whole heart.
What you're not allowed to do isstrap that belief to a therapy
license and call traumatreatment.
(01:01):
This is Childs versus Salazar,and it's not just about one case
in Colorado.
For over a decade, states havebeen passing laws to ban
conversion therapy for minors.
Twin states and Washington, D.C.
now have these protections onthe books.
The Supreme Court has been askedto hear challenges to these laws
before and has consistentlyrefused.
(01:22):
So what's changed?
The court's composition changed.
That's clearly the issue here.
With a 6-3 conservativemajority, the Alliance Defending
Freedom saw an opening, and theyengineered a case designed to
give this court exactly what itwanted: a chance to redefine
religious freedom as a right toignore professional standards.
(01:43):
Now again, this isn't just aboutwhether faith can override
evidence.
It's about whether belief canexempt you from professional
standards, and whether theSupreme Court will let religion
become a loophole in childprotection law.
Let's start with what's actuallybefore the court.
In Colorado, licensed therapistsare prohibited from attempting
to change or suppress a minor'ssexual orientation or gender
(02:06):
identity.
Kaylee Childs, a Christiancounselor backed by the Alliance
Defending Freedom, ADF, claimsthat law violates her First
Amendment rights.
Her argument, therapy is speech,not conduct.
And because her speech isreligiously motivated, the state
can't regulate it.
Colorado's response, this isn'tabout speech.
(02:27):
It's about protecting minorsfrom a discredited, demonstrably
harmful practice.
The Supreme Court heard oralarguments today on October 7,
2025, and a decision is expectedby the summer of 2026.
Now here's the problem with thatargument.
It ignores science.
Decades of research showconversion therapy doesn't work
(02:49):
and causes measurablepsychological harm, anxiety,
depression, PTSD, suicide risk.
The American PsychologicalAssociate, the American Medical
Associate, the American Academyof Pediatrics have all issued
condemnations.
There is no credible evidencethat sexual orientation or
gender identity can be changedthrough counseling.
(03:11):
So let's talk about what thatharm actually looks like.
Survivors of conversion therapyreport being subjected to
aversion techniques, being shownimages while receiving electric
shocks, by being forced to snaprubber bands against their
wrists while thinking aboutsame-sex attraction, being told
their identity makes thembroken, disgusting, and
abomination.
(03:32):
The statistics are devastating.
LGBTQ youth who undergoconversion therapy are more than
twice as likely to attemptsuicide compared to those who
don't.
Maybe three times as more likelyto use illegal drugs, more than
twice as likely to experiencesevere depression.
These aren't just numbers.
These are kids whose familiestold them they needed to be
(03:55):
fixed.
Kids who internalize the messagethat something fundamental about
who they are is so wrong itrequires intervention.
And when that interventionfails, because it always fails,
they're left believing they'rethe failure.
But here's the deal ADF knowsthis.
In their Supreme Court petition,ADF cited a 2016 study by a
(04:18):
sexuality researcher, Dr.
Lisa Diamond and law professorClifford Roski.
But here's what they didn't tellthe court.
Diamond and Rosky's studyactually condemns conversion
therapy as harmful andineffective.
ADF cherry-picked quotes fromtheir work, leaving out the
parts where the researchersexplicitly said conversion
(04:38):
therapy causes, and I'm puttingin quotes, elevated rates of
depression, anxiety, andsuicide.
That conclusion, the actualthesis of the paper, was on the
same page that ADF quoted from.
They just left it out.
When Diamond and Roski found outthey were furious, Roski told
The Guardian, it's deceptive.
Lawyers owe a duty of candor tothe court.
(04:59):
They cannot offer falseevidence.
They claim our work supportsconversion therapy when our work
clearly and specificallycondemns conversion therapy on
the same page they're citing.
He added, This is the mostupsetting use of my scholarship
that has ever happened in mycareer.
It's upsetting because this isletally dangerous to LGBTQ plus
(05:20):
kids.
Diamond said, that's what'sdiabolical about them using me.
They know they aremisrepresenting my views.
It also feels very hard tocounter because it's not coming
from facts or reason.
It's coming from animus.
Both researchers filed a briefwith the Supreme Court to
correct the record.
Their brief wasn't optional.
It was necessary because ADF'spetition to the highest court in
(05:44):
the land was built on afoundation of lies.
This isn't a good faithdisagreement about evidence.
It's a legal strategy built ondeliberate deception.
And that deception mattersbecause the law ADF is
challenging already carves outprotections for religious
speech.
Conversion therapy isreligiously motivated.
That's not an attack, it's afact.
(06:04):
The industry exists becausecertain conservative Christians
and Orthodox traditions teachthat LGBTQ identities are sinful
or disordered.
But here's what matters.
But here is some good news.
Not all religious people agree.
Many Christians, Jews, Muslims,and people of faith oppose
conversion therapy.
The United Church of Christ,Reformed Judaism, an Episcopal
(06:28):
Church, and countless faithleaders have condemned it as
harmful and unethical.
Religious belief isn'tmonolithic.
What we're talking about is aspecific subset of religious
practice, one that harmsvulnerable kids.
Now, here's something crucialthat often gets left out of this
conversation.
Colorado law already includes areligious exemption.
(06:48):
People engaged in the practiceof religious ministry are
explicitly exempt from the ban.
I'm going to say that again.
People engaged in the practiceof religious ministry are
explicitly exempt from the ban.
If you're a pastor, a priest, arabbi, an imam, if you're
providing religious counselingas part of ministry, you can
(07:10):
still counsel people accordingto your religious beliefs about
sexuality and gender.
The law doesn't touch that.
What it does regulate islicensed mental health
professionals, therapists,counselors, psychologists,
people who hold state-issuedlicense that come with
professional and ethicalobligations.
(07:31):
So when ADF argues that the lawsilences religious speech,
they're being dishonest.
Religious speech is protected.
What's regulated is professionalmedical practice.
Childs isn't being told shecan't believe homosexuality is a
sin.
She's not being told she can'ttalk about her beliefs.
She's not even being preventedfrom referring clients to
(07:54):
religious counselors who shareher views.
She's just being told she can'tuse her professional license to
practice a discredited, harmfultherapy on minors.
And religious liberty has neverbeen absolute.
You can't refuse chemotherapyfor your kid and call it faith.
You can't perform surgery in thechurch basement and call it
(08:14):
ministry.
You can't withhold insulin froma diabetic child because you
believe prayer over medicine.
Religious freedom ends whereharm to others begins.
Conversion therapy crosses thatline, and no amount of theology
makes that okay.
But what do you think?
Where should the law draw theline between sincerely held
belief and a demonstrablyharmful professional practice?
(08:37):
Hey, and by the way, whileyou're there, if you appreciate
this kind of secular analysis onthe collision of faith and law,
please make sure you're asubscriber.
I really do appreciate it.
It helps us grow, and it's theeasiest way to support this type
of work.
All right, let's get back to theshow.
Therapists aren't podcasters.
They're not YouTubers like me.
They're licensed professionalsoperating under standards of
(08:59):
care that demand adherence toevidence and ethics.
When a therapist speaks in asession, that's not
free-floating expression, it'sprofessional conduct.
Courts have consistently allowedlimits on professional speech
when public health is at stake.
A surgeon can't claim freespeech to ignore sterilization
protocols.
(09:20):
A pharmacist can't prescribeivermectin to COVID and call it
religious conviction.
A therapist can't practicediscredited methods and hide
behind the First Amendment.
And why?
Because licenses come withstandards.
That's the deal.
When you get a medical license,a therapy license, a
pharmaceutical license, you'reentering into a contract with
(09:42):
the state.
The state gives you legalauthority to practice.
In exchange, you agree to followevidence-based standards,
professional ethics, andregulations designed to protect
the public health.
You don't get to pick and choosewhich standards apply to you
based on your personal belief.
If you could, the entireframework collapses.
(10:02):
If religious speech suddenlyoverrides that framework,
professional regulation itselfbecomes optional.
And that's the goal here.
Not just to protect conversiontherapy, but to blow open a
legal pathway where sincerelyheld belief exempts you from any
rule you don't like.
This case isn't happening in avacuum.
(10:23):
It's part of a larger strategy.
Use the First Amendment to carvereligious exemptions out of
neutral laws.
We've seen it with religiousemployers denying contraception
coverage, forcing beliefs intohealthcare decisions.
We've seen it with businessesrefusing LGBTQ customers,
rebranding discrimination asconscious.
(10:43):
Now we're seeing it in licensedtherapy, making pseudoscience a
protective belief.
If this works, the playbookextends.
Let me walk you through oneexample of how this logic
spreads.
Imagine a pharmacist whobelieves hormonal birth control
is morally wrong and it's a formof abortion.
Under current law, thatpharmacist can't refuse to fill
(11:04):
a prescription just because oftheir personal beliefs.
They're licensed professionalswith a duty to serve the public.
But if ADF wins this case,here's the argument.
They would say dispensingmedication involves explaining
how to use it and when to takeit, the potential side effects,
that speech.
And if my religious beliefs saythis medication is immoral, you
(11:26):
can't compel my speech by makingme provide it.
That's a First Amendment issue.
Again, that's what they wouldsay.
The same logic applies to asurgeon who believes certain
procedures violate God's law.
To a therapist who thinksantidepressants are unnecessary
because prayer is sufficient.
To a medical professional whorefuses to treat transgender
(11:47):
patients because they believegender dysphoria isn't real.
They'll claim it's my sincerelyheld religious belief and you
can't regulate my speech.
It's simply medicalmisinformation packaged as
ministry.
The question isn't just aboutconversion therapy, it's about
whether faith becomes apermission slip to ignore
professional standards whenvulnerable people, especially
(12:08):
kids, are in your care.
So let's zoom out and look atwhat hangs in the balance.
As mentioned, 23 states andWashington, D.C.
have laws banning conversiontherapy for minors.
That's more than half thecountry.
If the Supreme Court strikesdown Colorado law, all those
protections could fail.
And we're talking about millionsof LGBTQ kids, kids who are
(12:31):
already at elevated risk forbullying and family rejection,
homelessness, and suicide, theywould be losing that one legal
protection that says licensedprofessionals can't subject them
to pseudoscience.
And it's not just conversiontherapy laws at risk, medical
boards, psychology licensingbodies, social work
associations, they all haveethical codes that prohibit
(12:53):
harmful practices.
If religious speech can overridethese codes, professional
self-regulation becomesmeaningless.
The American PsychologicalAssociation is watching this
case.
The American Medical Associationis watching this case.
State medical boards arewatching this case because they
know if the Supreme Court rulesthat professional speech
(13:14):
protections overrideevidence-based regulation, their
ability to maintain ethicalstandards collapses.
And beyond conversion therapy,other cases are waiting in the
wings.
Gender-affirming care bans,abortion counseling
restrictions, vaccine mandatechallenges.
All of them are watching Childsversus Salazar to see if
(13:34):
sincerely held belief becomesthe magic phrase that overrides
any regulation you don't like.
The stakes here aren'thypothetical.
They're immediate.
They're vast.
And they're about far more thanone counselor in Colorado.
The Supreme Court hasn't ruledyet.
Again, this is happening today.
We won't get a decision forprobably many months.
(13:57):
But here's what's alreadydecided: conversion therapy is a
fraud.
It doesn't work, it causes harm.
And every major medicalorganization in the country
agrees with that.
The only question left iswhether nine justices will call
it that, or will they sanctifyit under the banner of religious
freedom?
All right, that's my two cents.
(14:17):
Unblessed, unfiltered, asalways.
Agree or disagree, that's what Igot for you today.
So when the Supreme Courtdecision comes down, probably in
the summer of 2026, we'll knowwhether evidence still matters
in American law or whethersincerely held belief is now a
free pass from regulation.
Until then, remember this.
You can believe whatever youwant about who people should
(14:40):
love or how they live.
But the moment you turn thatbelief into a business, slap a
license on it, and practice iton kids, you're not exercising
freedom.
You're inflicting harm.
And no court, no courtwhatsoever, should call that
protected speech.
I will, of course, keep an eyeon this, and when a verdict
comes back, I will make sure Ibring that to you.
But once again, I'm Mike SmithGall, and this was today's Mic
(15:03):
Drop.
Hey, I really hope you enjoyedtoday's show.
Before you go, make sure youlike and subscribe to the show
and tell a friend.
It really helps us grow.
If you'd like more great contentfrom us, check out our blog at
atheistville.com.
Until we talk again, rememberreason and compassion go a very
long way.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!