Frank Canepa is a licensed counselor in Oregon.
He had a client that he worked with for nearly three years. That is until the client asked Canepa to personally affirm that client's same-sex relationship.
"At first, Frank tried to avoid giving his personal opinion at all, to sort of redirect the client's questions," explains attorney Logan Spena of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). "After about 20 minutes of insisting, Frank finally explained that he couldn't provide the affirmation the client was asking for because of his Catholic faith."
A complaint was later filed with the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists, which decided that Frank had violated the code of ethics by imposing his values on the client.
One of the penalties that Oregon law allows the board to impose is to charge a licensee full cost of the disciplinary process.
"Since Frank had invoked his right to a hearing to try to defend himself, that ended up being almost $90,000, all for essentially respectfully declining a client's request to affirm something his conscience wouldn't permit him to affirm," Spena reports. "So, Frank has appealed that adverse finding against him to the Oregon Court of Appeals, and ADF is representing Frank in that appeal."
ADF believes the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chiles v. Salazar (Kaley Chiles pictured above), which affirmed that the First Amendment protections apply to counselors as much as everyone else, indicates the Oregon court should rule in Canepa's favor.
"It's a huge blessing that that Chiles opinion came down just a few weeks ago," Spena tells AFN.
ADF was also involved in that case.
In Canepa's case, Oregon's appellate court is being asked to overturn the unlawful order, to restore First Amendment sanity, and halt the state's attempt to weaponize its licensure system.
