Why some say courts shouldn’t let faith override child safety

A recent court decision suggests that preventing harmful practices might violate free speech, at least when it comes to conversion therapy. The case involved a therapist claiming Colorado’s ban on the practice blocked her from offering treatment aligned with her beliefs. But here’s the catch: conversion therapy doesn’t work, and major medical groups have rejected it for decades. The real question isn’t about speech—it’s whether kids should be subjected to a discredited method that increases depression and suicide risks. Some argue the Bible justifies this approach, but cherry-picking verses ignores the bigger picture. The same book also bans tattoos and shellfish while demanding stoning for adultery. Most Christians don’t follow those rules either. Jesus’ teachings, which emphasize love and acceptance, don’t support harming LGBTQ+ youth. So why do some still push this harmful idea under the guise of faith?Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the ruling could open doors for unregulated "talk therapy" to cause real damage. Her point was simple: states should be able to ban harmful practices, even if they involve speech. Over 20 states already do this, but now those protections might weaken. At its core, this isn’t about free speech—it’s about whether evidence and harm prevention matter. If someone is born gay, it doesn’t harm anyone else. Using religion to justify cruelty just reveals a deeper discomfort with acceptance.