All you need to know about gay conversion therapy is that it was (is?) the profession of Mr Michelle Bachman.
Iâm personally on board with first three. Canât do this to people who donât consent or who canât consent adequately (minors). Fourth just requires some cooking of books to get around or just start a non-profit organization. And I canât really understand the problem with #5 if the advertisement is not for something that violates 1-4.
The other âproblemâ is that (assuming Iâm reading it correctly), it is specifically prohibiting converting homsexual to heterosexual, but not the other way around. Now, Iâll be the first to agree that is where the problem actually lies, but if this were imported to the US, I can imagine some sort of equal protection problem that would pose. Iâd be interested in what the lawbros think about that.
Once again, Iâm not saying this is a bad idea, but itâs looks hard to execute it cleanly. Doesnât mean we shouldnât try.
I realize that Iâve said this a couple of times, but I think it bears repeating
-Iâm not in support of Conversion therapy
-I think itâs stupid and abusive
-If we had laws that prohibited it, I would almost certainly not be opposed to them. I might be able to find some imperfections, but that doesnât mean I donât think the good would outweigh the problems.
Edit: Iâll add one more. I also think the vast majority of slippery slope arguments are dumb. Not 100% of them, though.
Yeah, I know that.
But do you think thatâs going to stop some Heritage foundation lawbros from making the argument. Slippery slope wasnât the only problem.
Once again, doesnât mean it should be attempted.
Youâre clearly missing the point, but I canât tell if itâs intentional or not.
Obviously, the only problem with conversion therapy as it currently exists is related to trying to convert homosexual people to heterosexual. The issue is that you have to write a law to prohibit that. And that law has to conform to the constitution and other existing law. Furthermore, bad actors shouldnât be able to use interpretations of this law (e.g. unequal treatment of individuals of different sexual orientations) to erode other good laws.
Itâs not that easy to do. Again, Iâm not saying that it shouldnât be attempted.
Lockdown is a slippery slope to socialism. The trifecta!
1 Like
The short(ish) version of the law bro answer is that it is not necessarily unconstitutional to write a law that treats people differently on the basis of sexual orientation. It IS unconstitutional to write that law if there is not a valid reason for it (and not liking people of a particular orientation is not a valid reason).
So, to give yourself the best chance to win in court, you would need to develop a record (probably through legislative testimony) showing the harms of the types of âconversion therapyâ you are trying to eliminate, that those techniques are used to try to turn LGBTQ+ individuals into âstraight folksâ (but not typically used the other way), and that youâve tried to write the law as narrowly as possible to achieve your aims.
Oh, and I havenât really thought about this too much, but you can probably write the law so that it is facially neutral, meaning that in the hypothetical situation where parents start sending their 13 year olds to pray away the straight camps because they really want a little lesbian, that can be outlawed too.
1 Like
dunno if it got posted but SCOTUS justices have new circuits
specific state that seems bad cliff notes are
PAâAlito
WIâBarrett
MIâKavanaugh
GAâThomas
long Circuit Assignments - Supreme Court of the United States
Is the logic that god is so vindictive that religious people will be punished for attending a service via zoom rather than in person?
probably has more to do with âshall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ
** With Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the conservative wing in the majority,**
You donât sayâŚ
COVID restrictions are generally applicable and not in any way targeting religion, not to mention they can just set up zoom worship. Just a transparently absurd, horseshit decision.
5 Likes
They wouldnât have to be specifically targeting religion to run afoul of the first amendment protection though.
The highest possible standard of review is strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling state interest and a government restriction that is narrowly tailored to meet the compelling state interest in the least restrictive way possible. That test is obviously met here, theyâre just owning the libs. Beyond that, if I remember correctly from my Lawbro days, strict scrutiny doesnât apply to laws of general applicability (not specifically aimed at religion), so strict scrutiny doesnât even apply here and the decision is completely indefensible. They didnât even get Roberts.
3 Likes
maybe they just decided to use normal scrutiny
4 Likes
This also overturned precedent from 1918 right? I recall reading recently that SCOTUS had ruled in favor of laws to mitigate the spread during that pandemic.
1 Like
I think that as long as laws/rules like that have a reasonably short expiry it shouldnât be a big deal. I dunno 60 days.
Now they will say masks are against freedom which is ludicrous. No shirt no shoes. I fail to see how a mask is any difference.
1 Like
Are churches exempt from building code requirements?
4 Likes
I am in favor of treating organized religion as an essential business for the purpose of COVID restrictions, but I also believe that religious activity isnât being treated differently from secular activity by New York. It just happens that religious services are perhaps the only essential activity that involves gatherings of people.