U.S. Appeals Court Voids South Florida Bans on Conversion Therapy for Children

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Reuters, via U.S. News & World Report

U.S. Appeals Court Voids South Florida Bans on Conversion Therapy for Children
By Reuters, Wire Service Content Nov. 20, 2020, at 12:08 p.m.

(REUTERS) - A DIVIDED federal appeals court on Friday struck down laws in two south Florida counties that prohibited therapists from offering so-called conversion therapy to children struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the laws in Boca Raton and Palm Beach counties were unconstitutional content-based restrictions on speech that violated the First Amendment.

The laws had been challenged by two therapists who said their clients typically had "sincerely held religious beliefs conflicting with homosexuality," and sought counseling to conform their identities and behaviors with those beliefs.

Both judges in the majority were appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump, while the dissenting judge was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Tom Brown)

Copyright 2020 Thomson Reuters.

Read more: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-11-20/us-appeals-court-voids-south-florida-bans-on-conversion-therapy-for-children

---

Hat tip, Popehat

The Eleventh Circuit, in a significant decision sure to be very controversial, has struck down a ban on so-called "conversion therapy," a contemptible practice advanced by bigoted crackpots.

/1

Link to tweet

/8 The bottom line: any suggestion that the 11th Circuit made up the ruling out of nowhere in a sudden surge of conservative craziness is wrong. Conversion therapy is dangerous and morally reprehensible but First Amendment challenges to bans on it are plausible under the law.

Link to tweet

/9 So, in watching for coverage of this, distinguish between what people believe the law should be and analysis of what it is, and don't confuse them. Also, bear in mind that the First Amendment routinely protects absolutely contemptible speech.

Link to tweet

[rainin]

1. This makes me cry. My transgender daughter routinely interacts with damaged transgender adults

who were subjected to this psychological warfare. It's inhumane. I wish these judges could be removed.

[Polybius]

2. I sense this will go all the way up to the US Supreme Court

Expect an immediate appeal.

[Grins]

3. How can 4 words do so much damage?

These four: "sincerely held religious beliefs.”

And how could a court allow that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Seems to me the problem is passing this off as "therapy"

which falsely paints it as a medical course of action, when it is, by the argument in this case, a religious one. If it were called "faith counselling" or similar, it would be telling the truth - that they are, on the basis of their faith, advising them to act the way their faith wishes.

[smb]

5. The First Amendment Doesn't Protect Someone Giving "Bleach Ingestion Therapy" For COVID...

...and it doesn't protect "conversion therapy" either, for exactly the same reason.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. It is not free speech to injure children psychologically. . . . nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. This judge would probably support Female Genital Mutilation, because ...

Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs.

[jmowreader]

9. Hmmm...

"Plaintiff seeks a religious exception to Section 187 of the California Penal Code.

"Plaintiff claims his community's sincerely held religious beliefs require 'the sacrifice of a virgin over the age of 21, if we can ever find one' on October 31 each year to appease his religion's deity. He admits this sacrifice has not been performed since 1946, due to a grave shortage of certain necessary items, but it is still prescribed by the tenets of his faith. He also claims Section 187 of the California Penal Code, which outlaws murder, is a violation of his civil rights and freedom of religion.

"Courts in all Federal circuits have upheld severe curtailments of individual liberty because the person seeking to curtail those liberties has claimed 'sincerely held religious beliefs.' See Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores and Zubik v Burwell. However, due to the nature of the 'sincerely held religious beliefs' claimed in this case, the Court is forced to deviate from that standard.

"Plaintiff has explained certain other of his sincerely held religious beliefs. Most of them violate either federal or California state law, and many of them violate basic principles of human decency. The court enjoins Plaintiff from performing any of these rituals for any reason whatsoever.

"The Court finds that it really doesn't give a flying fuck about Plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs, and we are not going to let him run around killing people."

[EndlessWire]

10. It's just hideous what we have become. n/t