Another case, Chiles c. Salazarwill allow judges to examine the prohibition of colorado in terms of conversion treatment for young LGBTQ patients for the reasons for the first amendment. Nearly two dozen states prohibit health professionals from the use of treatments that try to change the sexual orientation of a person or gender identity, citing scientific consensus according to which these treatments are both psychologically harmful and medically ineffective.
The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles, is an authorized advisor to Colorado Springs whose faith informs her processing approaches. Chiles said she is not currently practicing conversion therapy. At the same time, she affirmed that, since the law of 2019 had taken effect, it “has not been able to fully explore the bodily experiences of certain customers around sexuality and gender and how their sensations, thoughts, beliefs, interpretations and behaviors come together”. Chiles hopes that the law made the law for the reasons for the first amendment.
This is a familiar type of case in front of the Roberts court. As I noted earlier this year, Chiles did not face any kind of punishment or sanctions from state representatives for its advice practices. Its pre -supply challenge looks like that sought by a Christian website designer in Colorado which feared that it would not have to design wedding websites for same -sex couples and sought to limit the anti -discrimination law of Colorado for public housing accordingly.
