The Supreme Court’s Next Test: Faith vs. Facts
A Colorado counselor argues her beliefs allow her to counsel LGBTQ+ minors against their identities, while the state deems this harmful pseudoscience. The Supreme Court will evaluate this case, Chiles v. Salazar, highlighting the conflict between evidence and belief, law and faith, and the implications for professional standards.
A counselor in Colorado claims her “sincerely held beliefs” give her the right to counsel LGBTQ+ minors out of who they are. The state says that’s harmful pseudoscience. She says “First Amendment.” And now, the Supreme Court will decide.
Host Mike Smithgall breaks down Chiles v. Salazar, exposing the tactics behind the legal argument, the misuse of science by religious law groups, and the broader threat to professional standards.
Evidence versus belief. Law versus faith. Protection versus permission.
