The Supreme Court’s Next Test: Faith vs. Facts

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

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:00

There's a counselor in Colorado who believes she can counsel someone out of being gay or trans. The state said no, that's harmful pseudoscience, and you can't practice it on minors. She said, First amendment. And now the Supreme Court will decide whether sincerely held belief is a license to harm children. This isn't about religion versus government, it's about protection versus permission. I'm Mike Smithgall, and this is today's Mic Drop. Now, let's be clear, conversion therapy exists because of religion. Full stop. Without theology, there is no disorder to cure, no brokenness to fix. The entire premise depends on religious doctrines that say LGBTQ is sinful, wrong, or against God's wills. And you know what? You're allowed to believe that sincerely, deeply, with your whole heart. What you're not allowed to do is strap that belief to a therapy license and call trauma treatment. This is Childs versus Salazar, and it's not just about one case in Colorado. For over a decade, states have been passing laws to ban conversion therapy for minors. Twin states and Washington, D.C. now have these protections on the books. The Supreme Court has been asked to hear challenges to these laws before and has consistently refused. So what's changed? The court's composition changed. That's clearly the issue here. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Alliance Defending Freedom saw an opening, and they engineered a case designed to give this court exactly what it wanted: a chance to redefine religious freedom as a right to ignore professional standards. Now again, this isn't just about whether faith can override evidence. It's about whether belief can exempt you from professional standards, and whether the Supreme Court will let religion become a loophole in child protection law. Let's start with what's actually before the court. In Colorado, licensed therapists are prohibited from attempting to change or suppress a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaylee Childs, a Christian counselor backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, ADF, claims that law violates her First Amendment rights. Her argument, therapy is speech, not conduct. And because her speech is religiously motivated, the state can't regulate it. Colorado's response, this isn't about speech. It's about protecting minors from a discredited, demonstrably harmful practice. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on October 7, 2025, and a decision is expected by the summer of 2026. Now here's the problem with that argument. It ignores science. Decades of research show conversion therapy doesn't work and causes measurable psychological harm, anxiety, depression, PTSD, suicide risk. The American Psychological Associate, the American Medical Associate, the American Academy of Pediatrics have all issued condemnations. There is no credible evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through counseling. So let's talk about what that harm actually looks like. Survivors of conversion therapy report being subjected to aversion techniques, being shown images while receiving electric shocks, by being forced to snap rubber bands against their wrists while thinking about same-sex attraction, being told their identity makes them broken, disgusting, and abomination. The statistics are devastating. LGBTQ youth who undergo conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide compared to those who don't. Maybe three times as more likely to use illegal drugs, more than twice as likely to experience severe depression. These aren't just numbers. These are kids whose families told them they needed to be fixed. Kids who internalize the message that something fundamental about who they are is so wrong it requires intervention. And when that intervention fails, because it always fails, they're left believing they're the failure. But here's the deal ADF knows this. In their Supreme Court petition, ADF cited a 2016 study by a sexuality researcher, Dr. Lisa Diamond and law professor Clifford Roski. But here's what they didn't tell the court. Diamond and Rosky's study actually condemns conversion therapy as harmful and ineffective. ADF cherry-picked quotes from their work, leaving out the parts where the researchers explicitly said conversion therapy causes, and I'm putting in quotes, elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. That conclusion, the actual thesis of the paper, was on the same page that ADF quoted from. They just left it out. When Diamond and Roski found out they were furious, Roski told The Guardian, it's deceptive. Lawyers owe a duty of candor to the court. They cannot offer false evidence. They claim our work supports conversion therapy when our work clearly and specifically condemns conversion therapy on the same page they're citing. He added, This is the most upsetting use of my scholarship that has ever happened in my career. It's upsetting because this is letally dangerous to LGBTQ plus kids. Diamond said, that's what's diabolical about them using me. They know they are misrepresenting my views. It also feels very hard to counter because it's not coming from facts or reason. It's coming from animus. Both researchers filed a brief with the Supreme Court to correct the record. Their brief wasn't optional. It was necessary because ADF's petition to the highest court in the land was built on a foundation of lies. This isn't a good faith disagreement about evidence. It's a legal strategy built on deliberate deception. And that deception matters because the law ADF is challenging already carves out protections for religious speech. Conversion therapy is religiously motivated. That's not an attack, it's a fact. The industry exists because certain conservative Christians and Orthodox traditions teach that 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 Church, and countless faith leaders have condemned it as harmful and unethical. Religious belief isn't monolithic. What we're talking about is a specific subset of religious practice, one that harms vulnerable kids. Now, here's something crucial that often gets left out of this conversation. Colorado law already includes a religious exemption. People engaged in the practice of religious ministry are explicitly exempt from the ban. I'm going to say that again. People engaged in the practice of religious ministry are explicitly exempt from the ban. If you're a pastor, a priest, a rabbi, an imam, if you're providing religious counseling as part of ministry, you can still counsel people according to your religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. The law doesn't touch that. What it does regulate is licensed mental health professionals, therapists, counselors, psychologists, people who hold state-issued license that come with professional and ethical obligations. So when ADF argues that the law silences religious speech, they're being dishonest. Religious speech is protected. What's regulated is professional medical practice. Childs isn't being told she can't believe homosexuality is a sin. She's not being told she can't talk about her beliefs. She's not even being prevented from referring clients to religious counselors who share her views. She's just being told she can't use her professional license to practice a discredited, harmful therapy on minors. And religious liberty has never been absolute. You can't refuse chemotherapy for your kid and call it faith. You can't perform surgery in the church basement and call it ministry. You can't withhold insulin from a diabetic child because you believe prayer over medicine. Religious freedom ends where harm to others begins. Conversion therapy crosses that line, and no amount of theology makes that okay. But what do you think? Where should the law draw the line between sincerely held belief and a demonstrably harmful professional practice? Hey, and by the way, while you're there, if you appreciate this kind of secular analysis on the collision of faith and law, please make sure you're a subscriber. I really do appreciate it. It helps us grow, and it's the easiest way to support this type of work. All right, let's get back to the show. Therapists aren't podcasters. They're not YouTubers like me. They're licensed professionals operating under standards of care that demand adherence to evidence and ethics. When a therapist speaks in a session, that's not free-floating expression, it's professional conduct. Courts have consistently allowed limits on professional speech when public health is at stake. A surgeon can't claim free speech to ignore sterilization protocols. A pharmacist can't prescribe ivermectin to COVID and call it religious conviction. A therapist can't practice discredited methods and hide behind the First Amendment. And why? Because licenses come with standards. That's the deal. When you get a medical license, a therapy license, a pharmaceutical license, you're entering into a contract with the state. The state gives you legal authority to practice. In exchange, you agree to follow evidence-based standards, professional ethics, and regulations designed to protect the public health. You don't get to pick and choose which standards apply to you based on your personal belief. If you could, the entire framework collapses. If religious speech suddenly overrides that framework, professional regulation itself becomes optional. And that's the goal here. Not just to protect conversion therapy, but to blow open a legal pathway where sincerely held belief exempts you from any rule you don't like. This case isn't happening in a vacuum. It's part of a larger strategy. Use the First Amendment to carve religious exemptions out of neutral laws. We've seen it with religious employers denying contraception coverage, forcing beliefs into healthcare decisions. We've seen it with businesses refusing LGBTQ customers, rebranding discrimination as conscious. Now we're seeing it in licensed therapy, making pseudoscience a protective belief. If this works, the playbook extends. Let me walk you through one example of how this logic spreads. Imagine a pharmacist who believes hormonal birth control is morally wrong and it's a form of abortion. Under current law, that pharmacist can't refuse to fill a prescription just because of their personal beliefs. They're licensed professionals with a duty to serve the public. But if ADF wins this case, here's the argument. They would say dispensing medication involves explaining how to use it and when to take it, the potential side effects, that speech. And if my religious beliefs say this medication is immoral, you can't compel my speech by making me provide it. That's a First Amendment issue. Again, that's what they would say. The same logic applies to a surgeon who believes certain procedures violate God's law. To a therapist who thinks antidepressants are unnecessary because prayer is sufficient. To a medical professional who refuses to treat transgender patients because they believe gender dysphoria isn't real. They'll claim it's my sincerely held religious belief and you can't regulate my speech. It's simply medical misinformation packaged as ministry. The question isn't just about conversion therapy, it's about whether faith becomes a permission slip to ignore professional standards when vulnerable people, especially kids, are in your care. So let's zoom out and look at what hangs in the balance. As mentioned, 23 states and Washington, D.C. have laws banning conversion therapy for minors. That's more than half the country. If the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado law, all those protections could fail. And we're talking about millions of LGBTQ kids, kids who are already at elevated risk for bullying and family rejection, homelessness, and suicide, they would be losing that one legal protection that says licensed professionals can't subject them to pseudoscience. And it's not just conversion therapy laws at risk, medical boards, psychology licensing bodies, social work associations, they all have ethical codes that prohibit harmful practices. If religious speech can override these codes, professional self-regulation becomes meaningless. The American Psychological Association is watching this case. The American Medical Association is watching this case. State medical boards are watching this case because they know if the Supreme Court rules that professional speech protections override evidence-based regulation, their ability to maintain ethical standards collapses. And beyond conversion therapy, other cases are waiting in the wings. Gender-affirming care bans, abortion counseling restrictions, vaccine mandate challenges. All of them are watching Childs versus Salazar to see if sincerely held belief becomes the magic phrase that overrides any regulation you don't like. The stakes here aren't hypothetical. They're immediate. They're vast. And they're about far more than one counselor in Colorado. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet. Again, this is happening today. We won't get a decision for probably many months. But here's what's already decided: conversion therapy is a fraud. It doesn't work, it causes harm. And every major medical organization in the country agrees with that. The only question left is whether nine justices will call it that, or will they sanctify it under the banner of religious freedom? All right, that's my two cents. Unblessed, unfiltered, as always. Agree or disagree, that's what I got for you today. So when the Supreme Court decision comes down, probably in the summer of 2026, we'll know whether evidence still matters in American law or whether sincerely held belief is now a free pass from regulation. Until then, remember this. You can believe whatever you want about who people should love or how they live. But the moment you turn that belief into a business, slap a license on it, and practice it on kids, you're not exercising freedom. You're inflicting harm. And no court, no court whatsoever, should call that protected speech. I will, of course, keep an eye on this, and when a verdict comes back, I will make sure I bring that to you. But once again, I'm Mike Smith Gall, and this was today's Mic Drop. Hey, I really hope you enjoyed today's show. Before you go, make sure you like and subscribe to the show and tell a friend. It really helps us grow. If you'd like more great content from us, check out our blog at atheistville.com. Until we talk again, remember reason and compassion go a very long way.