Last Thursday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the challenge of two Missouri counselors who said their free speech rights were violated by Kansas City and Jackson County ordinances.
The case of Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City comes from the legal allegation the counselors are required by law to affirm gender-confused clients and some sort of same-sex conflict resolution.
The ordinances prohibit licensed counselors from engaging in what they call "conversion therapy" with minors. The ordinances define conversion therapy broadly to include counseling that seeks to change a minor's sexual orientation, or gender identity, or reduce same-sex attractions.
At the same time, the city ordinances expressly allow counseling that supports or assists a person's gender transition or provides acceptance and affirmation.
Citing their personal stories, homosexual activists coined the phrase "conversion therapy" to demand laws and ordinances that ban counselors from encouraging a client to resist same-sex attraction.
While that lobbying effort has largely succeeded, transgender ideology has faced a steeper hill since mental illness and human biology are obvious factors.
Pushing back on the trans ideology, Christian counselors Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenrich argued the ordinances prevented them from encouraging a client to become comfortable within his or her biological sex even if that, in fact, was the client’s goal.
They said the ordinances prohibit conversations requested by willing clients and parents while permitting only one viewpoint on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Their claims were dismissed at the district court level.
The 8th Circuit did not decide on the merits of the case but found that the U.S. Supreme Court, in its late March decision in Chiles v. Salazar, spoke clearly in favor of the counselors on the matter.
In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, as applied to a licensed therapist’s talk therapy, constitutes viewpoint discrimination violating the First Amendment.
The 8th Circuit sent the Kansas City case back to district court for a second attempt at closure.
“Absolutely, this can certainly impact counselors of faith and also counselors who don't have a religious perspective," Suzanne Beecher, of Alliance Defending Freedom, said on “Washington Watch” this week.
"The counseling relationship is personal; these conversations are deep. They need to be genuine authentic connections, understanding where a client is coming from,” Beecher said.
Counselors need the freedom to use that understanding to provide the best care for clients.
Pushing the transgender path “often for minors can set them up to be lifelong medical patients taking hormones, doing surgical interventions,” Beecher said.
It’s a path that also “certainly would be out of step with the Bible’s teachings,” she said.
Alliance Defending Freedom represented Kaley Chiles at the Supreme Court.
These two cases are very similar, Beecher said.
“This is an extreme kind of censorship that's harmful in violating the free speech rights of counselors, but also harmful in preventing minors from getting the support they need to regain comfort with their bodies.”
Beecher is optimistic that the district court will find a better resolution this time.
“In Chiles the (Supreme) Court was clear that this is discrimination based on viewpoint, and it's not justified to restrict the rights of counselors like this. Hopefully, this will be a kind of a smooth move through the court system to decide in favor of the counselors and to protect their rights to provide help to kids in need.”
