Supreme Court Suggests It Could Limit Bans On LGBTQ Conversion Therapy—What To Know
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • last year • 93 commentsBy: Story by Alison Durkee, Forbes Staff
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether to strike down state-level bans on LGBTQ conversion therapy, with justices on the majority-conservative court suggesting they may be willing to rule against Colorado’s law restricting the practice, at least as it applies to talk therapy.
Key Facts
The court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar , a case challenging Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ “conversion therapy” for minors, which broadly refers to practices that aim to influence a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including both emotional practices like talk therapy and physical procedures like electroconvulsive therapy, though this case concerns talk therapy specifically.
More than 20 states have passed laws banning or restricting conversion therapy, as repeated studies have shown the practice carries harmful effects for patients—such as elevated risks of suicide, drug abuse and mental health issues—and is not effective at changing patients’ sexual orientation or gender identity.
The case was brought by a Christian counselor who “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and argues Colorado’s law is discriminatory by preventing her from counseling people about their sexual orientation and gender identity, while allowing counseling that promotes “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding” around gender identity and transitioning.
Colorado argues it’s legal to regulate professional conduct when it comes to medical professionals, even if it involves speech, in order to prohibit treatment that doesn’t meet the standard of care.
The counselor, Kaley Chiles, who’s being backed by the Trump administration, is asking the court to broadly decide whether laws that “[censor] certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed” are constitutional.
While it’s still unclear how the court could rule, the 6-3 conservative court signaled it may be more inclined to rule in Chiles’ favor, with justices expressing concerns about regulating speech and whether Colorado’s law discriminates based on viewpoint.
What To Watch For
The Supreme Court’s ruling likely won’t come for another few months, sometime before the court’s term wraps up in late June 2026. The justices could rule in favor of upholding or striking down Colorado’s law, or could decide to punt on the case and send it back to a lower court for further review.
What Did The Justices Say About The Case?
Multiple justices on the court made comments Tuesday suggesting they may be hesitant to accept Colorado’s arguments that it’s allowed to regulate therapists’ speech.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether concerns about the harms of conversion therapy could be addressed by filing malpractice lawsuits, if the Colorado law was struck down, for instance, and suggested the possibility that there’s medical evidence on both sides of the debate over LGBTQ-related medical care, asking if states should be allowed to “pick a side.”
Justice Samuel Alito similarly suggested medical consensus about an issue can be “taken over by ideology,” and multiple justices questioned whether Colorado’s justification for upholding the law would apply in the opposite scenario, if a state passed a law that forbade therapists from affirming patients’ sexual orientations or gender identities. While the court’s conservative justices expressed the bulk of the skepticism during Tuesday’s oral arguments, even liberal-leaning Justice Elena Kagan appeared to suggest Colorado’s law could be discriminatory, arguing that if one doctor is allowed to help a patient affirm their sexuality while another is barred from helping a patient change it, “That seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination.”
The justices accepted Chiles’ argument that talk therapy is separate from any more physical medical treatments around conversion therapy, like electroconvulsive therapy, suggesting any ruling they may issue against Colorado’s law would not affect treatments outside of talk therapy.
Big Number
13%. That’s the share of LGBTQ youth who have either been subjected to or threatened with conversion therapy, according to a 2024 survey conducted by The Trevor Project among more than 50,000 Americans ages 13-24. That includes 5% who have been subjected to the therapy and 8% who were threatened with it. The findings suggest conversion therapy is on the decline as more states have banned the practice, as that 5% share is down from 10% who said in 2020 they were subjected to conversion therapy.
Surprising Fact
If the Supreme Court rules to outlaw LGBTQ conversion therapy bans and paves the way for the practice to be legalized nationwide, it could have a costly effect . A 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found conversion therapy and its “associated harms” carry an economic burden in the U.S. of approximately $9.23 billion per year. That’s due to both the cost of the actual therapy, which totals some $650 million spent annually in the U.S., and the knock-on effects for those who undergo the therapy, with the study finding each patient pays approximately $83,366 on average to treat the “downstream consequences” associated with the procedure. That comes from costs like treating anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions that arise from the conversion therapy, the cost of alcohol and drug abuse disorders and costs arising from suicide attempts or fatal suicides.
What Has The Trump Administration Said?
The Trump administration has intervened in the case, filing a brief with the court urging it to side with Chiles and taking time during oral arguments to speak in favor of the counselor’s case. The government argues the lower court that sided with the state didn’t apply enough scrutiny to whether the law burdens therapists’ speech and Colorado’s law should be overturned, or, at a minimum, the case should be sent back to a lower court. In its brief to the court, the Trump administration also questioned Colorado’s argument that the overwhelming “professional consensus” on conversion therapy is that it’s harmful and ineffective, arguing the state didn’t provide sufficient evidence to prove that and warning of “the dangers of relying on the consensus views of professional organizations to dictate what professionals may lawfully say.” Colorado’s purported “lack of convincing evidence of harm raises the inference that the State’s prohibition actually seeks merely to suppress a disfavored viewpoint,” the Justice Department claimed.
Key Background
The conversion therapy case is the latest in a string of major LGBTQ cases to come before the 6-3 conservative court in recent years, which similarly have largely weighed LGBTQ rights or alleged discrimination against purported First Amendment violations. Justices ruled in 2023 in favor of a web designer who refused to create websites for same-sex marriage, for instance, and ruled in June in favor of parents being able to object to LGBTQ books in schools. The court also upheld the ability of religious adoption and foster care agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples in 2021. Beyond First Amendment cases, the court upheld bans on gender-affirming care for minors earlier this year. The conversion therapy dispute is one of at least two landmark LGBTQ rights cases the court is set to consider this year, as justices will also weigh whether to uphold state bans on transgender women in sports . The court has also been asked to overturn its precedent allowing same-sex marriage , but has not yet decided whether or not it will hear that case.
Tags
Who is online
117 visitors
It seems that the Court will rule against the Colorado law.
The state of Colorado argued before the Supreme Court that there are innate things you can't change about yourself. This is a complete rejection of the trans ideology that claims gender is fluid. This is the logical pretzel that the Left has to go through. Your sexuality is innate and can't change, your gender is fluid and can change. Why? Because we said so.
Conservatives clearly don't understand what homosexuality is. At this point, I am sickened over conservatives OBSESSION with what my body parts MIGHT do!
Only a sick bastard would want to make child suicide rates go up.
Perhaps indoctrinated teachers shouldn't tell them that they might be born into the wrong body or that they can change their sex.
A strawman argument if I've ever seen one.
Both comments.
An indoctrinated PASTORS and Preachers should not PROMOTE a/ny religion without proof. Indeed, 99.99 percent of religions PROMOTE and have 'rituals' that they can not prove exist in another realm. (And I say this as a believer who works hard not to be presumptuous of other people realities.)
You should maybe not put so much faith in the notion that conservative media is telling you what actually happens in schools.
States should argue Religious counseling is not illegal under this ban. What they should ban are religious services pretending not be religious services.
We do allow religious beliefs in this country.
Freedom of AND from religion is one of our most fundamental rights. We shouldn't allow deceit and fraud in the name of religion though. I would no more tolerate humanists pretending to be religious than I tolerate churches pretending to be secular.
Yes, and thats the problem. Especially when those beliefs are wrong.
Could you elaborate on the deceit & fraud?
Attacking the First Amendment now. Amazing what people admit to.
I can't imagine a more mean-spirited thing that trying to debate religious people via science.
Whether one is a believer or not, consider what religion has done for society.
How many search results about religious counseling sites arguing they don't need to be, nor should they be, licenced would you except?
What does that mean?
Wars? Poverty? Oppression?
We aren't talking about Marxism.
We are talking about religion which teaches among other things right from wrong. Wasn't it better when people didn't steal because it was a sin? Long before there were video cameras in stores there was a sense of morals instilled in people through religion. Even an atheist should acknowledge the benefits of religion.
Correct, we're talking about how shitty people have treated others under the guise of religion.
When, precisely, was that?
Are you aware that many mafioso members were religious?
Too bad Trump is not religious; if so maybe he would curtail his lying and cheating.
A lot of wars and death, 9/11 immediately springs to mind, the crusades, millions killed around the world. It has given us a whole lot to think about.
Think back to before you went to college.
Nothing close to Stalin & Mao doing what was necessary.
Seems like envy is at play rather than critical thinking based on facts.
Those 100 million in less than 100 years don't count.
Marx said it would set people free and it was just the opposite.
Envy of what?
University education.
Marx never even hinted support of authoritarian rule —a dictator— who exploits the people. That is the exact opposite of what he proposed. His 'dictatorship of the proletariat' refers to the people taking control of the means of production and distribution for the benefit of the people ... not a dictator who exploits the people.
His method was coarse and violence was part of it (e.g. the proletariat ... the workers ... would fight those who opposed them). So I hold that his views were wrong. But totally misrepresenting what Marx called for is intellectual dishonesty.
Read what he wrote instead of merely believing the ridiculous boogeyman fantasy that some have created and labeled 'Marx'.
It is nice to know that you think it was necessary.
I didn't mention anything about Stalin and Mao, so your response is pure deflection. Or does the sliding scale of how many murders are committed in somebody's name win you a star on your jacket?
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away?
Dunno. It sure as hell wasn't here on earth.
I chose not to go.
The point was do you remember the world before you went there?
Stalin delivered on what Marx wanted, and authoritarianism is the only way to get there.
It wasn't religion. It was ideology.
Yes, Vic, my memory is fine.
You presume too much. My university focused on science, engineering, technology, mathematics, management, etc. Our professors did not engage in ideological or political sidetracks.
That is solid proof that you have no idea what Marx sought.
You actually think that Marx wanted a society dominated by an aristocracy, enabled and governed by a brutal dictator, where the people had no real democratic say politically or economically?
Just amazing that you would post such nonsense when it is easy enough to get the facts.
Then don't you remember when stealing was an immoral sin?
Yes, I do and the Russian experience proved it. As soon as Gorbachev instituted major reforms and people could vote many first voted to leave the Soviet Union while the rest later voted out Communism.
It still is.
The issue is whether documented sins prevent people from sinning.
People have been stealing, lying, coveting, and so on, for all of recorded history. If you have carved out in your mind some utopian era where the Cleaver family represented the norm of humanity, then I will strongly suggest that this is more fantasy than a fond remembrance of the good old days.
Personally the notion of sin means nothing to me. I do not care what ancient men wrote in books about what they considered to be sins. I do not steal, murder, rape, etc. because that goes against my mores and values. I suspect most people nowadays think similarly. For example, just because the Bible condones the owning of a human being as property does not mean that most people consider slavery moral.
Really? Who now believes that?
People have been stealing, lying, coveting, and so on, for all of recorded history. If you have carved out in your mind some utopian era where the Cleaver family represented the norm of humanity, then I will strongly suggest that this is more fantasy than a fond remembrance of the good old days.
Here is what I believe, and it runs counter to what the elite seem to think:
Post modern man is less moral, less decent and less rational than 20th Century man.
Your argument is circular. You declare that the former USSR implemented what Marx wanted and then claim the proof is the USSR implementation.
Again, Vic, it is obvious that you have not studied Marx (at all). I would strongly advise that you do at least some basic research into what Marx actually wrote and forget about the superficial crap that has forged your bizarre notion of what you believe Marx sought.
I'm very familiar with it and I think the country has learned a lot about it most recently as well.
No, you really are totally off base.
Marx envisioned a revolution. A violent uprising (at least when necessary) of the proletariat (the working class) against the bourgeoisie (capitalists/aristocracy). He believed that once a nation achieved industrial maturity where technology was sufficient to provide for the needs of the entire nation, and when the proletariat as a group realized their exploitation (class consciousness) that they would rise up against the bourgeoisie and (if necessary) forcibly take over the means of production and distribution. That they would then form a collectivist society where the workers (the vast majority of the people) had democratic control over both politics and the economy.
Marx had some very wild ideas and many were clearly infeasible. But his objective was to have a collectivist, classless society where people would contribute and benefit and exploitation would be minimized. Utopic, sure, but this is the polar opposite of what Stalin produced and the methods Stalin used were the exact opposite of what Marx sought. Stalin used the power of the state to control and exploit the masses and provide benefit to aristocracy. That is the opposite of what Marx described.
Considering the historical and current state of society, here and in other regions such as the Middle East, that is not a ringing endorsement for religion. Religion has held us back socially and intellectually with antiquated fables and beliefs in place of logic, reason, or rationality.
What attack? Thats some imagination you have
You do not think that religious people consider stealing, murder, rape, adultery, etc. a sin?
I do believe that is your belief.
Did you feel that way when JFK, MLK, and RFK were assassinated? How about when Manson's gang went on their killing spree? How rational was the Jones cult? Consider what took place in WWII.
Imagine being a person of color (especially black) living in the USA in the 20th century. How moral, decent, and rational would you find life (especially in the first part of the 20th century)?
Thing is, Vic, human nature does not evolve as quickly as you might think. It is far more likely that you have a false, romanticized memory of the good old days.
Same thing.
If someone needs religion to know right from wrong or prevent them fro. Doing wrong, they are a flawed person on a leash.
Yes TiG. And in the case of the Soviet Union all of that happened. The democratic control meant LEGITIMATE VOTING and when it was finally allowed under Gorbachev, the "workers" wanted better and they voted Communism out!
Stalin used the power of the state to control and exploit the masses and provide benefit to aristocracy. That is the opposite of what Marx described.
Stalin realized that to preserve the Communist state the workers could not be allowed to desire more (thus the slaughter of the Kulaks.) He realized that students couldn't think anything they wanted (thus the purge of the few universities Russia had.) He realized that Russia would have to be industrialized (thus the sacrifice of the peasants for the workers.) In the process even the police who performed the murders were murdered as well as many who were loyal to him. When those around him warned of the terrible price to be paid for all of it, he pushed on with it anyway and eventually Stalin did transform a primitive peasant country into a modern Soviet state. When he died in 1953 the Soviet Union was exactly what you described in your first paragraph minus the freedom, which is the main thing Marx was wrong about.
How many people are born as Christians but never go to Church or pray?
Did you feel that way when JFK, MLK, and RFK were assassinated?
Yes, despite isolated events like those.
How about when Manson's gang went on their killing spree?
Manson was ahead of his time, wasn't he?
How rational was the Jones cult?
It was insanity.
Consider what took place in WWII.
You mean when people faced modern weapons and great adversity with courage and fought for their countries?
Imagine being a person of color (especially black) living in the USA in the 20th century. How moral, decent, and rational would you find life (especially in the first part of the 20th century)?
Do you really remember? Black Americans had complete families back then, much lower crime rates.
Thing is TiG, the ancient philosophers may have had it right: Democracy ends with affluence & radicalism.
No Gordy, one doesn't need religion to know the difference, people should have a moral compass.
Doing wrong, they are a flawed person on a leash.
I'd rather have them following a moral code, that thinking that they are the center of the universe.
Whose "moral code" exactly? Morality is subjective. Even religion doesn't agree on what is considered moral or not or to what degrees. Some seem to believe religion is the arbiter of morality. Ironic considering religion has quite the long history of what is otherwise deemed immoral.
That is factually wrong. How you could even bring yourself to post that claim is remarkable.
Do you truly not see the difference between the people who have collectivist control over their economy and politics versus the people as a subdued, exploited mass controlled by an authoritarian state, led by a murderous dictator, which delivered benefit to a tiny minority of the population (aristocracy and members of the Communist party)??
An entire post where you deflect by cherry-picking.
Your claim that human beings were so much nicer in the 20th century remains unsubstantiated.
We all know how we could leave our doors unlocked in an era of goodwill and expanding affluence which btw: needs no diagrams. It was you who went cherry-picking listing things that are common to every era. The rest of us lived through it.
Stalin would agree. I say morality is clear cut and it is timeless.
Do you not see that you cannot have one without the other?
Tell us how a country of peasants who worked the land get to collectivist control over their economy and politics? Especially when some of them (the Kulaks have managed to acquire a few possessions and a slightly better life.) Mark didn't have to say this will be the cost, it is reality.
Except it's not. Plenty of gray areas to morality. Not to mention different cultures and societies have different moral standards. You still haven't explained whose "moral code" should be followed.
Here Vic, I asked ChatGPT to assemble a chart of USA crime rates for the last 50 years
Follow the facts rather than rely upon a romanticized memory of the past.
Over the past 50 years there has been a marked downward trend in USA crime. This is true even while there is a downward trend in religiosity.
You are denying facts ... even those right in front of your nose.
The former USSR was a brutal authoritarian regime where a minority class dominated the majority. Where the people (the majority) were oppressed and had little freedom.
You know this yet you come back with the blatantly contradictory claim that one cannot have a collectivist system where the people have economic and political freedom without authoritarian oppression.
Good grief man, think this through.
I have never claimed that Marx was right. In fact, I have stated that his concepts were utopic and criticized his methods.
You are moving the goalpost.
Which morality? Every culture has a different set of mores and values. In fact, differences appear at the individual level.
Morality has always been based on what is perceived as "good" or "righteous" (religious definition of good) for humans, and what is considered "bad" or "evil" (religious definition for bad). The problem comes when two separate groups of humans come into conflict over a resource that they view as "good" or "righteous" for them and their people but could be taken away by the "other" group of humans which, for this group of humans, would be "bad".
So, to still claim to be the moral authority supporting what is "good" for humans, group 1 has to de-humanize the other group. They have to be turned into "monsters", "animals", "killers", "rapists", an "infestation". Then, group 1 can hold their heads up high with "righteous" indignation and do the worst things imaginable to those they have dehumanized because morality doesn't apply to those who aren't human.
This has played out countless times throughout human history and is still playing out and EVERY religion on the planet has played into it and claimed themselves the moral authority, and it's still going on today. This to me, proves without a doubt there is NO moral code that comes from some higher source. If there was, it would never allow its religion, it's representatives on earth, to justify and be complicit in so many atrocities against other humans throughout history as every religion on the planet, or at least their adherents since 'religion' is as amorphous as the concept of the God they worship, are guilty of.
You say morality is "clear cut" and "timeless", but have you not defended the condoned slavery in the bible as something we can't judge because that was normal "for that time"? Or are we just not following the bibles morality properly these days and Christians and Jews should still be stoning to death disobedient children?
The problem with that is that today you have Fox News and other rightwing media that spends 100% of its time scaring the shit out of their gullible, often elderly, mostly white, viewers. It's what they rely on to keep those pale eyes on their channel soaking up all those commercials for gold, apocalypse survival gear and reverse mortgages.
If they play the same clip of the same isolated incident ten thousand times, these morons actually believe that shit happened ten thousand times. These are clearly not very smart folk as they continue to watch it even after their favorite source of news had to admit in court it KNOWINGLY lied to them about non-existent election fraud which was the tinder that sparked January 6th. But I'm sure they wouldn't know the truth about any of that because they got all their news from... wait for it... Fox News! The same news company that just had to admit it lied to them about election fraud.
All they have is their romanticized memory of their past, that 'Ozzy & Harriet' or 'Leave it to Beaver' world where all white Christian Americans were 'God Damn Heroes!' who deserved a white Christian nation that catered to their every need and had Andy Griffith and Barney Fife rounding up the "riff raff" aka anyone not white and Christian and moving them right on out of town. Or, if the goodness in their heart's strikes, allow the poor child cursed by Cain, to deliver the milk or clean the house, seeing as how magnanimous white Christians are. On 'Leave it to Beaver' they were ahead of their time by allowing a single black character, Kim Hamiltons role as a maid named Carol, to have a "speaking role" though there was one early episode in 1962 that had a black actor exist a dairy truck in a non-speaking cameo.
Let's face it, that is what the MAGAverse is imagining when they close their eyes and fantasize about "Making America Great Again". They want to de-diversify and re-Christianize America and one of the main ways they believe they can do that is by amplifying any and all crime in society and blame it on an American society that has drifted away from their "moral compass" aka white conservative Christian dominance.
Just to further expand, as that was very simplified, most know that there are also competing groups within each society that are often defined as 'classes' that do the exact same thing. Demonize those at the bottom so they can justify fucking them over and doing things to them that would be considered "immoral" to do to a fellow of similar status as one's own, but completely justifiable if you've dehumanized those of a lower class enough. Of course, on a larger scale, even those at the bottom of their society are better than those at the top of another competing society so even if one homeless mentally ill bottom of the rung in society member of that nation is attacked by another competing nation, the people at the top will rise in righteous indignation and demand recompense!
What good religion does for society. . . and it has done tangible good, does not give it 'card blanche' to continue to harass a subset of people with CONSTANT suppression and repression. "We" are sick of meddlesome Christians, specifically. What will "we" have to do? Turn and face Christians and 'break their will'?!
The only reason conservatives are succeeding at any of this, is because secularists, pagans, and Others are not INTERESTED in this 'fight' over their lives. . . and so the 'battleground' has been slanted and weighed to the conservative side. But,. . . that can change in a 'mississippi minute."
Exactly. I recently just WATCHED on my television set what the "good" people in the "Holy Land" did to one another and it left an indelible impression on me. There was NOTHING holy about this! Nothing holy by either side. It appears 'holy' people can act stupider and be more cruel to other religious people than secularist/pagans!
My biggest beef with religion right this instance is evangelical MAGA supporters who stand' with the daily LYING activities and abuses of their TWICE party leader and president Trump. It is a shame before God that shameless evangelicals can condemn lies (or made to appear as lies) on one side of the political spectrum while supporting the biggest liar in the 'game' on their side!
Remember the Trump line about forgiveness. It goes something paraphrased like he too good to need any God-forgiveness for sin.' But, he is a Christian, according to him, nevertheless! And the MAGA evangelicals gave him a pass they won't even give LIBERALS THAT GO TO CHURCH every Sunday. In fact, MAGA evangelicals 'pushed' Trump up to the top of their consciences right under Jesus!
I am at a loss to explain why religious groups back Trump given he is, for the most part, the antithesis of their views.
Meh. Maybe.
I think some morality probably is. Adultery (as an example) is pretty much immoral and always will be.
However I know women who were told as kids that it was immoral for them to wear pants to church. Some people think drinking or smoking is immoral.
If there is significant debate on what is or isn't moral, it seems necessarily subjective.
maybe they think the other side is worse?
Which defies both logic and the facts.
The 'other side' would not be trying to normalize using the military domestically, engaging in counterproductive tariffs, damaging international relationships in a global economy, having a deragned, unfit, unpresidential, corrupt, narcissistic, vindictive life-long con-man occupy the oval office, etc.
And the other side would not have as PotUS the only sitting president of the USA who tried to steal an election through fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement.
Personally I am in favor of fiscally and ethically responsible government and the GoP has totally abandoned that. I think it is important for the USA to serve as the example of a well-run democratic society and provide leadership and encouragement for the benefits of a functioning Republic.
Trump is a disaster. He is clearly the worst PotUS in our lifetimes and quite likely will be regarded as the worst in our history.
So thinking that 'the other side' might be worse ignores current, weekly facts and discards fundamental principles that we all (ostensibly) held dear such as the rule of law, freedom of speech, federalist government, checks & balances with a clear separation of power, etc.
Watch it. The world changes and people have no choice but to change with it! Just look at what MAGA is up to! It's desperately trying to tell White Americans they are superior to others through a demonstration of alleged, "smarts"-which is nothing more than an expression of hardcases trying to muscle the present world leaning forward into 'pedaling' backwards. Well, I have news for MAGA: The "Langoliers" (Steven King's eternal timekeepers) have munched the past away. . . and thus, there is nowhere back there to reenact. That world envisioned by MAGA is no more and unless MAGA can make the world deaf, dumb, and blind. . . and forget. . . then, we have no choice but to continue on into the future. MAGA, try not to get left behind when other nations-'drop' MAGA politics on its. . . butt!
Why would 'anybody' leave their doors unlocked? Did you really believe in your neighbors that much?! Even family members can be abusive of another family member's property! And, more to the point, it is MAGA's chief complaint today as it is-that, open borders let's outsiders just waltz right in(side)! Tell me something: Do you have memories of sleeping in a house (that had locks on the doors) with the doors UNLOCKED?!!
Did you have any locks built into the doors of white homes to begin with, Jack?
There is some truth to this. White Evangelicals (as imperfect as they are) are actively seeking to PERFECT their lifestyles on this Earth as Perfect in Heaven. Thus, they have this 'spiteful' representative named Trump leaving them in the achieving of policies that call for the disaffection of liberals and the 'snap' thought on seeing (or reading) a liberal word or act as demon-possessed.
Yes! White evangelicals are fully supportive of war, guns, and death to those they call offensive to their God. One they possess "dominion" in the United States the plan is to remove, erase, disenfranchise, and powerless the "demon - liberals, progressives, secularists, pagans, and Others. Why? Because none of these will obey them.
Don't forget Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)! Them with the gold commercials too. Them with the leave TBN (help God message to the world) in your will 'message' - after you depart this life go be with the Lord! Them with the Charlie Kirk Show still on the network!
It is basically a right-wing deal with the devil (small d.) It goes that God can use anyone to do 'dirty' that God keeps clean hand from doing. In the Old Testament, Satan was found to be 'wanting' and leading the 'production' of evil in heavenly and worldly places. . . thus, God would 'dispatch' an evil spirit to 'behave' in evil-fashion and designs on those God expressly passed judgement on. Well, as Pastor Jeffries (of Texas) stated, 'I want the meanest, toughest, SOB, we can find to be president.' That way, Southern Baptists evangelicals do not have to offend God by acting 'ugly' - just let the 'devil' do what is in ITS heart to those they perceive and have convinced themselves are not under the UMBRELLA of (their) God!
The metaphor gets a little (tad) tricky in its consistency if you consider that MAGA evangelicals are using a 'devil' to. . .in their opinion. . .oppress those they label demons. That is, get this. They 'hired' a devil to squash and take power away from (alleged) demons. Tricky, huh?
What is truly sad is God's name is being dragged through the spiritual mud. . . by these evangelicals, as they think to outdo their 'First Love' (Jesus) through waging political warfare such as to 'bring God down from Heaven.' It truly goes to show that they have forgotten the first rule of spirituality: Man is the Created thing; God is the Creator (speaking biblically).
That is, well,. . . God can't be 'Wagged' by created things!
As long as I can remember, we never locked the doors unless we were to be gone for an extended period and then we gave the key to family and/or friends. To this day the doors are unlocked and my house is actually easy pickings being on a backroad with few neighbors.
We did, just a few days ago, had someone break into several homes in the area and the police, using profiling, has caught them already.
Did you have any locks built into the doors of white homes to begin with, Jack?
My home has tan siding, and the some of the doors have locks, just need to remember where the keys are.
Thank you for sharing that! It helps to frame a critical point. That is, I do not know where such places exist,. . .but you did venture a place: "Backroad." I'm guessing wooded or plains where houses are far apart.
Here's the issue, some conservatives talk about. . . this. . . as though people in cities should or would be better off living in the 'backwoods,' wide-open plains, or country and hill -sides. The ready-made question pops out of that: "Well, who would live ten feet away across the fence in CITIES?!
After all there are benefits to living in cities. . . one relatively best benefits is it leaves plenty good room for the quiet comfort found on the plains and in the countrysides/hillsides!
Yes, cities are noisy, crowded, and hubs for crime with their alleyways, and blue-light districts, and perpetual 'street-life.' Also, cities are where the people of the world gather together. . . even live on the streets!
It serves no good purpose for country people and those situated in the greater outdoors to point to cities and complain (I do not imply that you are a critic of city living). Cities are were people from around the world meet, congregate, built upwards, and importantly conduct world-class business dealings daily.
That would destroy many black churches.
What ever happened to the left not wanting government to get between a patient and their doctor? I guess when they want to promote a mental illness for political gain then it's okay.
They still don't. Unfortunately the right does and they are winning at this point.
When you take a potato and put it in the microwave, if you hit the Pizza button, when it finishes it is still a potato, genders work the same way.
A potato can be many things. It can be French fries, chili fries, mash, baked, loaded, criss cut, seasoned, twice baked, roasted, au gratin, O’Brien, salad, home fried, stewed, hasselback, etc.
Yeah, they’re all potatoes, but only an ignorant fool thinks they can only “work” one way.
Sounds like a couch complaint to me, hopefully he uses cushions to absorb the inertia from all those sacks.
Well, there are other uses for potatoes too. Rub it on windshields or green house glass to prevent fogging up, but it's messy; use it to fertilize geraniums;
rust remover or silver shining
Thicken gravy or make Potatoe flower.
Add potatoes to reduce over salting; it also removes other food stains like beets or berries. Works on clothes too.
But the number one use in certain countries is to make Vodka.
Potato, Potatoe, lol.
There’s also this:
But that very same potato can be this:
Conversion therapy (by consent) shouldn’t be illegal. I think it does a lot of damage, so I don’t endorse it, but I support the freedom to make bad choices.
But if this must be legal, so must abortion, birth control, gay marriage, and gender affirming care.
Good point
I agree. If the 'therapist' can effectively switch a homosexual's or lesbian's sexual attraction (including the spiritual bond that takes place when a man sees another man or a woman sees another woman each is attracted to—(the hard part)) More power to that therapist. Because it has been a life of true sexual 'highs and lows' for me and others who did not ask to be in a world where I am born this way. . .but hated (and obviously feared) by a conservative power!
Here is the thing. What is she planning to counsel homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals to do? Be themselves or be a lie? What does her curriculum entail? What does she plan to say to LGBTQ folks? Will she lead them down a 'rosy' path of promises and 'capitalize' them financially, only to find out that the path she talked them into is not a lasting way to live. . . and get into old-aged fulfilled as a heterosexual person?
Or will she simply pat herself on the head and shoulders, when she gets temporary 'reprieves' in sexual conduct from a man, woman, boy, or girl desperately wanting a way out of a life that on the surface is ostracized, discounted, and 'eternally' negatively fought against and down by a conservative minority (with power)?