The Supreme Court’s Next Test: Faith vs. Facts
Subscribe for updates: Leave this field empty if you’re human: In this episode of Mike Drop, host Mike Smithgall takes on the Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The case asks a dangerous question: can “sincerely held belief” excuse professional harm? Mike breaks down what’s…
In this episode of Mike Drop, host Mike Smithgall takes on the Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The case asks a dangerous question: can “sincerely held belief” excuse professional harm?
Mike breaks down what’s at stake, how religious arguments are being used to undermine science, law, and child protection. He exposes how the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) misused scientific studies to defend conversion therapy, and why the real issue isn’t free speech, it’s whether faith can override evidence. Watch to the end for a discussion of the broader pattern behind this case, where “religious liberty” becomes a tool to avoid professional accountability. Do you think religious freedom should ever override professional standards? Or should public protection always come first?
