(Supreme) Court Rejects Challenge To Law Banning Gay Therapy
Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to California's law that bars mental counseling aimed at turning gay minors straight.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state's ban on so-called conversiontherapy for minors doesn't violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that efforts to change sexual orientation were outside the scientific mainstream and have been rejected for good reason.
Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, had challenged the law along with other supporters of the therapy. They argue that lawmakers have no scientific proof the therapy does harm.
###
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-rejects-challenge-to-law-banning-gay-therapy
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)mountain grammy
(26,621 posts)The corrupt ones passing on a chance to further their religious and right wing beliefs and disrupt democracy.
malthaussen
(17,195 posts)But I have this theory that the USSC is okay with finally acknowledging gay rights because they and the other branches are making said rights valueless to begin with.
-- Mal
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Hey..."Liberty Counsel"...
*both hands...FINGER!*
closeupready
(29,503 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)If you said a state could not outlaw quack psychotherapy, you would also say that a state could not ban quack psycho-surgery.
lexx21
(321 posts)Why do the fundie groups have such a hard on against the gay community? Just because two same sex people want to be together, do they think that "gay rays" are going to make them want to do the same? It's insanity, and what is worse is that they are gaining ground in some places. You either have a proclivity toward someone of the same sex or you do not. It's that simple. It's not like you are "converted".
Personally, as a christian, these groups just need to sit down and shut up. If two people fall in love and want to be together, care for one another, possibly raise a family together, so be it. It's their business, not that of anyone else. It sickens me to see people try to mandate their version of morality on others.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)this is what God commands them to do.
Do I believe it? No. But that's why these people can't just "live and let live".
Rarely do I see them picketing outside Red Lobster. The language attached to eating shellfish is just as strong... Hmmm.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)The Bible says not to eat pork, but half the Southern churches that teach Biblical Inerrancy rely on pig pickin's as their primary source of income. (The other half are big on oyster roasts, which are also banned.)
One of our number put it very well: You know God is created in your own image when he hates all the same things you do.
They do pick and choose, and it certainly isn't random. I'm reminded of the "alternative versions" of the Bible that southern plantation owners supplied for slave churches, with the justifications for slavery added thereto.
They aren't going to the Bible to see what they should do, they're just wrapping themselves in it to justify bigotry that can't be justified through any tortured and warped version of logic.
They point out biblical prohibitions of sodomy, without ever seeming to realize or admit that those prohibitions cover getting BJs from women, as well. There's also a prohibition against laying with your wife while she's on her period. The hypocrisy would be funny, if it wasn't so scary.
What's really Ironic is that (if real and reported accurately) JC was probably one of the most Liberal and Progressive leaders (in context of their time) in all of human history. He's the guy who preached tolerance, love of everyone, cast out the money lenders, discouraged throwing stones, and eventually got arrested and sentenced to capital punishment. Does anyone seriously think that if He were alive today, He'd be a Republican?
Alex P Notkeaton
(309 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)am I misunderstanding you?
Alex P Notkeaton
(309 posts)Believe me.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)... and, dare I say it, balanced...