When the Supreme Court hears arguments this week over Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, it won’t be deciding a question of speech — it’ll be deciding whether the far right can use “religious freedom” to justify harm.
The case, Chiles v. Colorado, centers on a Christian counselor who claims the law violates her First Amendment rights. Backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — the same group behind anti-LGBTQ+ cases involving wedding cakes and websites — she insists her sessions are merely “conversations,” not treatment. But this is a dangerous sleight of hand.
The “Free Speech” Smokescreen
Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law, enacted in 2019, prohibits licensed professionals from trying to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not ban open discussion, faith, or identity exploration. It simply bars discredited methods that aim for a predetermined outcome — making a child straight or cisgender.
Every major health organization, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, has condemned conversion therapy as ineffective and harmful. Research shows it leads to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation — not healing.
Yet, ADF and its allies claim Colorado is “muzzling” one side of a “debate.” But there is no legitimate debate here — only science versus ideology.
Real Stakes: The Safety of LGBTQ+ Youth
According to a Williams Institute study, over 698,000 LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. have been subjected to conversion therapy, about half as minors. Survivors are nearly twice as likely to attempt suicide. These numbers aren’t abstract — they represent kids who were told that love for themselves was a sin.
Colorado’s law was designed to stop this. It doesn’t silence religious beliefs — it stops state-licensed professionals from practicing pseudoscience on children. There’s a moral difference between faith and fraud.
A Conservative Court and a Familiar Pattern
This case fits a broader pattern from a conservative supermajority that has steadily eroded LGBTQ+ protections. In 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), the Court sided with a web designer who refused to make same-sex wedding sites, framing discrimination as free expression. In Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018), it sided with a baker who refused to serve gay customers.
Each ruling weaponized the First Amendment to justify exclusion. Now, the same legal machinery is targeting bans on conversion therapy — and, by extension, the right of queer kids to exist without being “fixed.” This only adds to the stresses young people have to face as they face the difficult process of adulting.
Trump’s DOJ Joins the Fight
Although this is a state case, the Trump administration has intervened in support of the counselor, arguing Colorado is “silencing” therapists. The move isn’t surprising: Trump has already banned trans girls from sports, rolled back diversity programs, and endorsed “parental rights” bills designed to erase LGBTQ+ representation in schools.
By injecting itself into this case, his administration is signaling a broader agenda — to dismantle LGBTQ+ protections under the banner of “free speech.”
The Broader Culture War
The anti-LGBTQ+ movement has rebranded itself. Gone are the days of overt bigotry; now it’s constitutional lawfare. Groups like ADF have learned that “religious liberty” and “free expression” make effective Trojan horses for discrimination.
If the Court strikes down Colorado’s law, over 20 states with similar bans could see their protections unravel. Unlicensed religious “counselors” — who already operate in legal gray zones — will be emboldened. The door will open wider for pseudoscientific “faith-based” therapy targeting vulnerable children.
Progressives Must Draw a Line
This case is not about whether someone can talk about faith — it’s about whether the state can stop licensed professionals from peddling harm. Allowing conversion therapy to masquerade as speech would be like allowing a doctor to sell bleach as medicine and call it “dialogue.”
If the Court truly believes in protecting children, it must recognize that free speech doesn’t extend to state-sanctioned abuse. Protecting minors from psychological harm isn’t censorship — it’s compassion.
The Moral Imperative
Every LGBTQ+ survivor of conversion therapy carries scars. Many never recover from being told their identity is curable. That’s what’s at stake when the Supreme Court hears this case: the right of queer youth to grow up unbroken.
So when you hear conservatives claim this is about “freedom,” remember whose freedom they mean — not the child’s, but the adult’s who refuses to accept them.
Colorado’s law stands for a simple truth: you don’t need to be cured to be loved. The Court should uphold that truth — and reject yet another attempt to weaponize the Constitution against compassion.
