Posted on 02/05/2023 1:58:43 PM PST by daniel1212
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down Tampa, Florida's ban against talk therapy for minors seeking freedom from unwanted same-sex attraction.
The city had tried to block licensed therapists from providing voluntary counseling to those minors. The federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that the ban is unconstitutional under the First Amendment....
The latest ruling is based on Liberty Counsel's previous victory in Otto v. City of Boca Raton in which the Eleventh Circuit had ruled that similar attempts to muzzle counselors from helping their clients in Palm Beach County and the City of Boca Raton were unconstitutional restrictions on the freedom of speech because they targeted specific viewpoints.
(Excerpt) Read more at 1.cbn.com ...
And as increasingly seen, have rejected the Bible and even any traditional moral sense, then there is no end to what class of persons can be covered as a protected class. A man who identifies as a animal can claim discrimination if denied a marriage license to his supposedly mutually loving partner.
And indeed a law that bans helping a person to transition from homosexuality and heterosexual conversion goes beyond the original extension of civil rights, as it is akin to prohibiting counseling a person who seeks deliverance from thinking of himself as an animal.
In this the state has effectively become an enforcer of a secular form of sharia law, forbidding conversion from the faith of the state.
And which is indeed a faith, as classifying a person based upon what they feel like when it is contrary to biology, is certainly no science.
Ping
Thank you, Daniel.
The libs in Tampa likely have dozens of other sneaky plots up their sleeves.
Misinterpreted of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment only limits one group of people; The Congress.
Read it:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Individuals, states, and local governments are not limited. Congress is and Congressmen are not limited from having religious objects or expressing religious opinions. Cities, state governments, and Federal lands and buildings are not prohibited from having the Ten Commandments or a cross or a menorah or a crescent moon and star or manger scene. Prohibiting these are a misinterpretation of the First Amendment.
State and local governments could even specify or ban religions if their constituting documents don’t prohibit it.
Too many people have never read the Constitution and do not know that most of what the Federal Government is doing is not Constitutional.
If I recall correctly ... there has been a long tradition of encouraging and promoting perversion in Tampa. Well, Tampa is not especially unique in this regard, but I remember some lawyer trash-talking a private citizen who got involved in one of the decency-focused organizations/movements.
Lawyers usually love to talk about how the law is amoral. And then they frequently make the illogical argument that immorality is just based on definitions and traditions.
I should have keyed the jerks car.
Talking to kids that don’t want to be homosexual is condemned, but castrating and neutering kids that don’t want to be the sex they were born with is praised. Welcome to clown world.
Except that - like it or not - the Constitution only authoritatively means why SCOTUS says it does, and as you likely know, it came to apply all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Which has been used to both protect religion as well as persecute it,
In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people “liberty” without “due process.” Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the ’40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.
The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employee’s speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on the property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.- https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment
Except as concerns that latter, if a provider refuses to provide service based on something that gives applicant protected status - which (due to more SCOTUS interpretation) now extends to what gender they ID as - then they can be in trouble.
Here are also excerpts of this analysis:
The Tenth Amendment gives testimony that subsidiary powers are reserved to the states: The "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Certain sovereign powers are delegated to the United States that are prohibited to the states, such as the power to coin money or to make treaties: Article I, Sec- tion 10, Clause 1
the notion was advanced that civil liberty guaran- tees of the Bill of Rights ought to be construed as restraints on state governments as well as on the federal government. This was the contention of the plaintiff in the case of Barron v. Baltimore, decided in 1833. 4... . It was alleged by Barron that the city of Baltimore violated the eminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment, which declares that private property shall not be taken for public use without just com- pensation.5 In delivering the opinion, Chief Justice Mar- shall felt compelled to declare that the Court had no juris- diction in the case.
More than a century after this pronouncement by Chief Justice Marshall, the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, was construed to make the First Amendment ap- plicable to the states. In the case of Cantwell v. Connecticut,6 decided in 1940, the Court held that the fundamental concept of "liberty," embodied in the Fourteenth Amend- ment, embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amend- ment, which declires that Congress shall enact no law re- specting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Court went on to state that the Four- teenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact laws which will deprive individuals of their liberty without due process of law;
Because the Connecticut statute involved in this case prohibited solicitations of money for religious, charitable, or philanthrophic causes without ap- proval of the secretary of public welfare, and authorized the secretary, upon application of any person in behalf of such cause, to determine if such cause is a religious one or a bomz fide object of charity, of philanthropy, the Court held that the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the extent that it authorized a censorship of religion by the secretary through power conferred on him to withhold his approval...
In 1947, the Court looked back over less than a decade, to rulings in which the Fourteenth Amendment had been construed to make the prohibitions of the First Amendment applicable to state action abridging religion.... in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township,' 4 decided February 10, 1947... a tax- payer of New Jersey contending that a New Jersey law amounted to a contribution of public funds in support of a religious establishment... Tending toward the pronouncement of decision in the Everson case the Court said:
... The First Amend- ment requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them ... The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.
"[as] set forth by John Court- ney, S. J., in A~mcA, February 15, 1947:... Before one can know whether public aid to parochial schools is the enter- ing wedge in the wall of separation of Church and State, one must know where this wall is and what it walls off from 'what . .. There is a constitutional 'wall' between state authority and the religious conscience. There is also a wall between state authority and the parental conscience; it was constitutionally affirmed in the famous Oregon School case, in which the Court denied to the state the right to force parents to send their children to public schools. In general, there is a wall between the areas ruled respectively (and exclusively) by civil authority and religious authority. But the metaphor must not be pressed too far. The Supreme Court of Mississippi (in Chance v. Mississippi . . . ) well said: 'Useful citizenship is a product and servant of both Church and State, and the citizen's freedom must include the right to acknowledge the rights and benefits of each . . . Indeed, the State has made historical acknowledgment and daily legislative admission of a mutual dependence, one upon the other. It is the control of one over the other that our Constitution forbids.' - - https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3880&context=ndlr
And see what I said in post 1. The Founding Father never conceived of a day when the 1st Amendment would be interpreted in a way which results in atheism being effectively fostered (since if the gov. never expresses a need for divine assistance or gratitude to the same, and bans the teaching of even science-bases intelligent design as an alternative hypothesis to godless creation then student are likely to think atheism is the one state-sanctioned belief - and godless creation is indeed a faith), let alone believing you are an animal grants you protected class status as much as race does.
Not only, but children may have no rights that protect them from being murdered by parents in the womb, but then in some places parents have no right to be told that their offspring ID's as a sex opposite of biology, and are being seduced by counselors, and who may be preparing them for gender reassignment surgery, potentially even receiving puberty blockers.
When I was young, a human that was the same sex as I, was attracted to me, but he didn't get any reciprocity from me.
I sure as he** didn't need any THERAPY to deal with it!
Molech is being worshipped yet still!
They DON'T??
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
Except that - like it or not - the Constitution only authoritatively means why SCOTUS says it does. See post https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4128785/posts?page=8#8
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.