U.S. Supreme Court’s Refusal to Take Up Critical Religious Freedom Case Leaves Christians in Limbo

---

If Christians are prohibited by state law from talking about what the Bible says about the nature and reality of sin, does the First Amendment actually guarantee free speech for anyone?

---

Last Monday the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a case that should be of great interest to Christians in America.

SCOTUS Blog reports that:

“A divided Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide whether a Washington state law that prohibits licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on children violates the First Amendment.

The conversion therapy question came to the Supreme Court in the case of Brian Tingley, a Washington marriage and family counselor. Tingley went to court in 2021 to challenge a state law, known as Senate Bill 5722, that added conversion therapy — the practice of seeking to change a declined person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling — for minors to the list of violations that can lead to the loss of a therapist’s license. Tingley argued that the law violates the First Amendment, because it would limit his right to speak freely when counseling his younger clients on issues relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.

The district court dismissed Tingley’s lawsuit. It relied on a 2014 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Pickup v. Brown, that had upheld a nearly identical California ban on conversion therapy.”

What this means is that Washington’s unconstitutional and anti-Christian “conversion therapy” ban remains in effect.

Now it’s important to point out that SCOTUS Blog, which largely does a good job summarizing the legal facts of the case, still adopts the progressive framing of the idea of “conversion therapy.” This phrase is a “scary” word that the Left likes to use when discussing Christian counseling for children or adults who wrestle with the sin of homosexual lust. Christian counselors aren’t trying to “convert” individuals who “identify” as homosexual into heterosexuals but rather call them to understand the nature of sin, including their homosexual lusts, and then encourage them to repent of that sin and accept forgiveness and new life in Christ Jesus. Of course, part and parcel with new life in Christ is the “putting off” of the “old self” and the “putting on” of the “new self” through the Spirit, which unavoidably entails forsaking a life lived in pursuit of homosexual attractions. Still, this does not amount to what the Left wrongly labels as “conversion therapy” — rather, it’s Christianity 101.

With that bit of necessary linguistic brush-clearing out of the way, let’s consider the facts of the case a bit more closely.

Tingley’s case is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and ADF does a good job explaining the radical nature of this unconstitutional law on free speech grounds. Here is how they sum it up:

“Brian works with only those clients who choose to seek counseling from him. Even if clients come to him through a recommendation from a parent or a church, he will not continue counseling them unless they decide they want him to.

Clients set their own goals when talking with Brian, and he only works toward the goals that his clients have set for themselves. Those seeking to become comfortable with their sex or reduce unwanted attractions are doing so on their own accord.

But a Washington state law censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients who are under 18. The law prohibits Brian from speaking to his younger clients about some of their goals. Specifically, it bars him from discussing topics related to gender, sexual orientation, sexual behaviors, or gender identity that are not in line with the state’s radical views.

Washington’s law seeks to shut down those conversations. But the law doesn’t stop Brian from promoting the government’s beliefs about gender and sexuality. In fact, it says that counseling which encourages “exploration and development” is perfectly acceptable, and it even allows counselors to guide minors toward treatments and procedures that could permanently sterilize them. But if Brian chooses to help clients toward their own goals of becoming comfortable with their biology, the state can fine him up to $5,000 per violation and can even revoke his license.

The government has no right to censor pure speech by deciding which side of an issue can be talked about. Additionally, it has no right to pry into conversations between counselors and clients who voluntarily seek their help.”

That’s a long quote, but it’s important context. In summary, this Washington law stops Tingley from counseling minors toward their very own goals when it comes to matters of “sexual orientation and gender identity” unless those goals are essentially “preapproved” by the state.

In other words, Tingley can encourage children who don’t want to identify as homosexual or transgender to do so, even against their specific request for counseling to help fight their sin or gender confusion. That’s the only speech Tingley is permitted under this radical law. But if he counsels them to fight their homosexual lust, or to be comfortable in their God-given bodies — again, per the counselees’ request — he is risking a $5,000 fine and the loss of his license.

This law essentially locks in one option, and one option only, for confused youth: encourage them to be “gay” and “trans” — no matter what.

Wrong is right. Black is white. Up is down. And the LGBTQIA+ Big Brother is coming for us all.

Now, three of the most conservative Supreme Court justices wanted to hear the case, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who rightly understand what exactly is at stake for Christians in states like Washington, California, and others that are trying to ban the Bible under so-called laws against “conversion therapy.” SCOTUS Blog summarized their arguments in support of hearing the case:

“Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both penned dissents from the court’s denial of review. In a five-page opinion, Thomas emphasized that government officials cannot dictate ‘what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.’  But under S.B. 5722, Thomas contended, ‘licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment.’ Expressing ‘no doubt that the issue’ in Tingley’s case ‘will come before the Court again,’ Thomas stressed that ‘[w]hen it does, the Court should do what it should have done here: grant certiorari to consider what the First Amendment requires.’

In a shorter opinion, Alito argued that it ‘is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny.’ Because the courts of appeals are divided on the constitutionality of laws like S.B. 5722, Alito continued, ‘this case easily satisfies’ the Supreme Court’s ‘established criteria for granting certiorari,’ and — like Thomas — he ‘would grant review.’”

Thomas and Alito both see and understand something that even their other conservative counterparts, like Chief Justice Roberts, fail to recognize: For any state in America to “ban” biblically based speech from Christians is to violate the First Amendment.

As it stands today, 22 states and the District of Columbia have these anti-Christian laws on the books, according to Time. While some states have no laws on this issue, only a handful of states, like Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Indiana, have sought to proactively protect the First Amendment rights of Christian counselors and pastors by passing laws to prohibit local-level bans on conversion therapy. Some of these laws have also been challenged and are pending in the federal judiciary.

Given this legal landscape, the Supreme Court can only duck the issue for so long. This issue highlights the deep divide in America, or perhaps what we could call the existence of “two Americas,” when it comes to so-called LGBTQIA+ “rights” and Christian religious freedom. At the root of the divide is the reality that the sexual revolution and its ever-developing dogmas function as a competing religion to Christianity, and its adherents will brook no dissident. The “orthodoxy” of the LGBTQIA+ “religion” will be enforced at the end of the sword, and Christians have to get with the program or close their mouths.

Christians who hold to a biblical worldview know that disordered “sexual orientation” and “gender identities” should never be treated as some sort of protected class or status but rather as sins against God that should be repented of and forsaken.

For Christians to be able to speak in accordance with the clear teachings of Christianity about what sin is, they must be free to call those who are pursuing homosexual lust or “transgenderism” to repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The LGBTQIA+ movement has worked overtime to stop the voices and speech of Christians who, bound by the Bible, cannot “affirm” such sinful choices and “lifestyles.”

Of course, silence in the face of sin isn’t an option for the Christian. As Peter and the Apostles replied to the religious leaders of their day who told them to stop preaching about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

While we like to think of our country as the “land of the free,” the grim reality is that the United States becomes less and less free for Christians every passing year, state by state, law by law, case by case.

Christians should therefore pray that the Supreme Court will eventually hear a case on the anti-Christian and unconstitutional efforts to silence Christians with “conversion therapy” bans, and in their ruling uphold the First Amendment rights of all Christians to say what the Bible says about sin — no matter who gets offended by it.

---

If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.