Earlier this year, the Supreme Court nearly unanimously rejected a Colorado law against "conversion therapy" that forced Christians to affirm anti-Christian actions.
Subscribe to view the full article, including all images, videos, and social media embeds.
Kansas City, MO, has a carbon copy of this law in their city, modeled directly on Colorado's unconstitutional law. The difference is that KC is still trying to enforce this violation of conscience.
Subscribe to view the full article, including all images, videos, and social media embeds.
Missouri's Kansas City and Jackson County are nonetheless trying to preserve their self-admitted 'functionally identical' ordinances as long as possible, and in the city's case, validate an even further-reaching, all-ages public accommodation ordinance, in response to a challenge by licensed counselors Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich ...
The city has repeatedly argued in friend-of-the-court briefs before SCOTUS that public accommodation laws can legitimately compel speech, which means Bury and Eisenreich must offer affirming counseling to gay married couples and transgender people if they offer the same to heterosexual couples and people who identify with their sex, [Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Bryan] Neihart said.
KC and Jackson County seem to believe that the SCOTUS ruling doesn't apply to them.
They are attempting to force Christian counselors to take gay married clients and not condemn their marriage, and force woke trans nonsense on Christians, compelling them to agree with the spirit of the age on this issue.
But the lawyers for the city are really trying to confuse the issue.
Kansas City attorney Kelly also confused the panel on exactly what she was arguing related to injunctions.
She insisted the counselors have nothing to fear and an injunction is unwarranted because the city has never applied the ordinance to counselors.
'I know of nothing coming out of our civil rights enforcement division' in the way of guidance that would reasonably lead the counselors to chill their speech, she said.
When Kelly insisted Chiles doesn't affect 'the application of the public accommodation ordinance,' an appeals judge reminded her that District Judge Ketchmark 'expressly wove into' her analysis that counseling is 'non-expressive conduct that's not protected' by the First Amendment.
'Why wouldn't Chiles have a bearing on the proper disposition of this relief that's been requested?' in light of Ketchmark's analysis, the judge asked.
Who would've thought these people would use confusion to try to get their way?
The city tried to argue that they had taken no action against the plaintiffs, and therefore they had nothing to worry about when it came to this civil rights ordinance. But the judge had to remind the city that, even if there had been no action taken yet, the law specifically curtails the freedom of speech of counselors.
Based on the letter of the law, the city could take action against any counselor who refused to affirm the LGBT lifestyle.
Y'all think they're gonna get away with this one?
Enjoying this article? Subscribe for full access.
Subscribers see every embed, image, and video inline — plus comments and our fully-featured social platform.
