Religious-Liberty-Annual-Report

V – Religious Liberty and the Supreme Court 29

the government may, based on content and viewpoint, force Smith to convey messages that violate her reli gious beliefs and restrict her from explaining her faith. The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit Court decision. Before the Supreme Court, the question presented was whether applying a public accommodations law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court had not agreed to hear arguments on the Free Exercise Clause aspects of the case. However, the implications of the ruling for religious freedom are clearly positive. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion set out an impassioned defense of free speech, but also ground ed itself firmly in the facts of the case. One especially important fact was that Colorado had conceded that Ms. Smith was willing to design other kinds of websites for customers who experience same-sex attraction, just not wedding websites. This emphasis on the facts of the case served as a rebuttal to the dissent by Justice Ketan ji Brown Jackson, who argued that the Court’s decision would sanction invidious discrimination of all sorts. C. Tingley v. Ferguson (U.S. No. 22-942) (cert. de nied) The Supreme Court declined a request to consid er a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a Washington state law that forbids li censed therapists in the state from practicing therapy

OSV News photo/Mark Thomas, Pixabay

that assists minors who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction, or who want help accepting their God-given bodies. 39 Brian Tingley, a therapist in Wash ington, argued that the law unconstitutionally restricts his rights under the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the petition to hear the case, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas each issued dissents from the deni al. Justice Thomas wrote that, under the Washington law, “licensed counselors can speak with minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-ap proved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities. Expressing any other message is for bidden — even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form.” 40