4 ms·

The Supreme Court weighs conversion therapy in a case from Colorado

27 points by duxup 1y ago

intermerda 1y ago
https://www.commondreams.org/news/alito-2668492585 https://www.commondreams.org/news/alito-2668492585 > Alito replied, “I agree with you,” when Windsor said people who are conservative Christians need “to return our country to a place of godliness.” He said Windsor was “probably right” when she said, “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.” > “One side or the other is going to win,” agreed the justice. “I mean, there can be a way of working—a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. It’s not like you can split the difference.”
- psunavy03 1y ago
  Supreme Court clickbait: take a quote from the two most right-wing Justices and imply it's the view of the entire Court, despite there being seven other Justices not named Thomas or Alito.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    Hot take: judges are supposed to be impartial. No judge in the highest court should hold such views. Saying them out loud is shocking.
  - add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
    One of them disagreeing with the general principle of separation of church and state is newsworthy. Unless you're in agreement with them, or unless you're someone who just gets dragged around by the Overton window no matter where it goes.
  - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    Do you intend to wait until it's 5 of 9 justices being openly Christian Nationalist to raise the alarm? AFAIC even one supreme court justice blatantly contradicting the constitution in order to establish his demographic as a privileged class is cause for concern.
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    Glad you agree their views are extreme. What's worrying is that the court is being influenced by these views and could vote along those lines. Or do you think what they're doing and saying is fine?
    - psunavy03 1y ago
      Unless they can whistle up three more votes on anything, they can shout into the void all they want and it means nothing. This is why there are nine Justices.
      - malnourish 1y ago
        I sincerely hope your optimism counteracts my pessimism. It seems SCotUS is ruling more often with Alito and Thomas than against.
      - braebo 1y ago
        The majority have wiped their ass with the constitution to aid a fascist coup they were appointed to facilitate. Not holding my breath.
  - intermerda 1y ago
    Where does it imply that it's the view of all nine justices on the bench? Are you intentionally trying to undermine the gravity of this by straw-manning?
ratelimitsteve 1y ago
here comes another republican victory for freedom that will result in fewer things I can do and more ways people can hurt me.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  How would this decision potentially result in fewer things you can do?
  - kridsdale1 1y ago
    Changing norms in a state that make it socially unacceptable to let your kids be gay, resulting in you not be able to be an out and proud ally parent or gay kid, later adult.
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      Indirect social norms affect conservatives as well. I don't think it's clear which court result will result in more or less net freedom from second order effects, but it's clear what the first order effect would be (more freedom). Since first order effects are typically dominant and more reliable, a conservative result here would likely be pro freedom.
      - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
        it's pro-freedom until it's your gay nephew that tries to kill himself because his family bullied him into seeing an unlicensed "therapist". Queer kids who go to these centers are twice as likely as other queer kids to attempt suicide (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-press-release/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-...). This isn't just another prong of the whole conservative "actually it's a violation of my rights any time someone tells me I can't violate your rights" thing, it's gonna result in dead kids.
pavel_lishin 1y ago
> The conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, along with Colorado therapist Kaley Chiles, is challenging the ban on conversion therapy, contending that it violates a therapist's right of free speech in talk therapy. > "I want to be able to operate genuinely and create therapeutic relationships that are not hindered by the values and position of our state," Chiles says, adding that for now she has to turn away clients who want conversion therapy. This paints a picture of conversion therapy as a nice chat in an office, instead of camps where children get sent away to, with minimal supervision, and barriers to even the parents getting a hold of them again.
- kridsdale1 1y ago
  “ Alliance Defending Freedom” wants to retain the freedom to put kids in concentration camps and force them to hide themselves.
- paulddraper 1y ago
  Which one does the law apply to?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TrnsltLife 1y ago
Can't encourage someone to behave more heterosexually if they come in to talk about that, but must encourage someone to chop off their d*ck if they come in to talk about that? Makes no sense. Although it does line up with an underlying impulse to discourage human reproduction. Reproductive suppression.

27 points by duxup 1y ago

https://www.commondreams.org/news/alito-2668492585 https://www.commondreams.org/news/alito-2668492585 > Alito replied, “I agree with you,” when Windsor said people who are conservative Christians need “to return our country to a place of godliness.” He said Windsor was “probably right” when she said, “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.” > “One side or the other is going to win,” agreed the justice. “I mean, there can be a way of working—a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. It’s not like you can split the difference.”

psunavy03 1y ago
Supreme Court clickbait: take a quote from the two most right-wing Justices and imply it's the view of the entire Court, despite there being seven other Justices not named Thomas or Alito.
- triceratops 1y ago
  Hot take: judges are supposed to be impartial. No judge in the highest court should hold such views. Saying them out loud is shocking.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  One of them disagreeing with the general principle of separation of church and state is newsworthy. Unless you're in agreement with them, or unless you're someone who just gets dragged around by the Overton window no matter where it goes.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  Do you intend to wait until it's 5 of 9 justices being openly Christian Nationalist to raise the alarm? AFAIC even one supreme court justice blatantly contradicting the constitution in order to establish his demographic as a privileged class is cause for concern.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  Glad you agree their views are extreme. What's worrying is that the court is being influenced by these views and could vote along those lines. Or do you think what they're doing and saying is fine?
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    Unless they can whistle up three more votes on anything, they can shout into the void all they want and it means nothing. This is why there are nine Justices.
    - malnourish 1y ago
      I sincerely hope your optimism counteracts my pessimism. It seems SCotUS is ruling more often with Alito and Thomas than against.
    - braebo 1y ago
      The majority have wiped their ass with the constitution to aid a fascist coup they were appointed to facilitate. Not holding my breath.
- intermerda 1y ago
  Where does it imply that it's the view of all nine justices on the bench? Are you intentionally trying to undermine the gravity of this by straw-manning?

ratelimitsteve 1y ago

here comes another republican victory for freedom that will result in fewer things I can do and more ways people can hurt me.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
baggy_trough 1y ago
How would this decision potentially result in fewer things you can do?
- kridsdale1 1y ago
  Changing norms in a state that make it socially unacceptable to let your kids be gay, resulting in you not be able to be an out and proud ally parent or gay kid, later adult.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    Indirect social norms affect conservatives as well. I don't think it's clear which court result will result in more or less net freedom from second order effects, but it's clear what the first order effect would be (more freedom). Since first order effects are typically dominant and more reliable, a conservative result here would likely be pro freedom.
    - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
      it's pro-freedom until it's your gay nephew that tries to kill himself because his family bullied him into seeing an unlicensed "therapist". Queer kids who go to these centers are twice as likely as other queer kids to attempt suicide (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-press-release/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-...). This isn't just another prong of the whole conservative "actually it's a violation of my rights any time someone tells me I can't violate your rights" thing, it's gonna result in dead kids.

pavel_lishin 1y ago

> The conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, along with Colorado therapist Kaley Chiles, is challenging the ban on conversion therapy, contending that it violates a therapist's right of free speech in talk therapy. > "I want to be able to operate genuinely and create therapeutic relationships that are not hindered by the values and position of our state," Chiles says, adding that for now she has to turn away clients who want conversion therapy. This paints a picture of conversion therapy as a nice chat in an office, instead of camps where children get sent away to, with minimal supervision, and barriers to even the parents getting a hold of them again.

kridsdale1 1y ago
“ Alliance Defending Freedom” wants to retain the freedom to put kids in concentration camps and force them to hide themselves.
paulddraper 1y ago
Which one does the law apply to?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

TrnsltLife 1y ago

Can't encourage someone to behave more heterosexually if they come in to talk about that, but must encourage someone to chop off their d*ck if they come in to talk about that? Makes no sense. Although it does line up with an underlying impulse to discourage human reproduction. Reproductive suppression.