Conversion Therapy Ban

[Burning Petard]

I have a long interest in Dissenting Options from the federal Supreme Court Judgements. They frequently present intertaining insight into the stupid foolishness of individual justices, and other times give clues to changing directions that court may be taking in future cases.

Justice Thomas may have done both in his dissent in Tingley v Ferguson, about the states' right to ban Conversion Therapy. The most excellent law philosopher Clarence Thomas did not agree that the state has such a right. To me he implies that under the constitutional rights of free speech or religion, the state does not have the power to prohibit a licensed marriage and family counselor from persuading a client that they would be better off if they killed themself, or if their eye offended, they should personally pluck it out. Or even prohibit any such therapy, if it is well established to be of no positive effect, or even harmful. Because "Tingley does so through “talk therapy, i.e therapy conducted solely through speech."

Perhaps I even have the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater, after all, it is solely through speech.

But then again, I am not a graduate of Harvard Law School, so what do I know?

snailgate