Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

A Colorado counsellor just won 8–1 at the Supreme Court. Her victory is a gift — and a call to arms.

It was the ruling that almost nobody in the mainstream press wanted to announce. On 31 March 2026 — poetically, International Transgender Day of Visibility — the Supreme Court of the United States handed down one of the most significant free speech decisions in a generation.

The vote was 8–1. Eight justices, including liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, told the state of Colorado what millions of Christians, parents, and counsellors had known for years: you cannot criminalise a conversation because your ideology clashes with it.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar, and at the centre of it is Kaley Chiles — a licensed professional counsellor in Colorado Springs, a practising Christian, and someone who helps young people asking for her help. Her misdemeanour? Agreeing with her clients.

Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law had forbidden licensed therapists from helping minors grow comfortable with their biological sex, even when that was exactly what the young person wanted. A counsellor could steer a child toward gender transition — that was fine.

But if the same counsellor agreed with a teenager who wanted to make peace with his or her body, that was illegal. The state had picked a side — the side that suited the LGBT-affirming ideology it mandates — written it into law, and threatened anyone who disagreed with losing their licence.

That, said eight of nine Supreme Court justices, is not healthcare regulation but censorship.

“Censorious Governments Throughout History Have Believed the Same”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, elaborated: The First Amendment, he wrote, “is no word game” — the government cannot simply relabel speech as “conduct” or dress up viewpoint discrimination or ideological bias as a professional regulation and expect the Constitution, and the rest of the non-woke majority, to look the other way.

But there was another line that should stop every Christian reading this in their tracks. Gorsuch wrote that Colorado “may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

Censorious governments throughout history. The majority of the United States Supreme Court just described what Colorado was doing in those terms: ideological censorship. They’re right. And many of us have been saying the same thing for a long time.

This is precisely what US conservative commentator Rod Dreher has called “soft totalitarianism” — a system that, unlike the tyrannical variety, doesn’t imprison you for your beliefs immediately. It simply makes it illegal to speak them. It strips health professional licences. It threatens livelihoods. It “re-educates” children. It punishes with a process (circa Lyle Shelton). And it does all of this while insisting it is protecting the vulnerable. It is akin to East German agitprop coupled with the Executive Branch bureaucratic Stasi.

“A totalitarian system,” Dreher writes in Live Not By Lies, “wants your soul.” That is exactly what Colorado’s law demanded of Kaley Chiles: not merely her silence, but her professional complicity. She was not permitted to be neutral, balanced, reasonable, or even to allow her clients to choose what they wanted. She was required to affirm LGBT identity and nothing else.

What Love Actually Looks Like

Kaley Chiles is not a culture warrior. She is a counsellor — someone who sits with hurting young people and tries to help them flourish. Her clients often sought her out precisely because they shared her faith. They came to her wanting to talk honestly about their bodies, their beliefs, their struggles. And the state of Colorado told her she could only respond in one way, which was completely against her faith, beliefs and sense of compassion.

In her own words: “When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. Counsellors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries.”

This is where Christians need to feel the full weight of what was being demanded — and what was at stake. The state was not simply regulating bad therapy. It was, in effect, redefining compassion and care for itself, usurping the virtues of freedom and personal autonomy that the Christian faith has underpinned for millennia.

But real love — the kind Scripture describes — will not forcefully affirm an LGBT inclination. “Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth,” The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13. Christian morality is defined by Biblical standards, and if a young person chooses to seek guidance from a counsellor that incorporates these moral values (in common with half of half the Western world), it’s genuine love that will keep that counsellor from staying silent. When a young person is sincerely asking for moral and practical direction aligned to their own worldview or faith, love compels us to speak up and not let our silence leave children abandoned and without help.

Al Mohler Jr, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminar, put it plainly: “Love compels us to tell people the truth.” That is not cruelty or hatred. That is the most basic form of care one human being can offer another: to look them in the eye and tell them the truth. Even better, tell them the truth according to God, not the ‘truth’ according to their latest feeling.

When a state criminalises that conversation, it has not protected anyone. It has simply declared that one ideology’s version of “care” is mandatory, and every other version is illegal. That is not medicine but an instrument of ideological totalitarianism through censorship. And it is fundamentally discriminatory against people of a religious background, who wish to bring their own moral compass to bear on their most personal decisions, be they Jewish, Islamic or Christian. It’s why the tag “viewpoint discrimination” fits.

The Asymmetry That Exposes Everything

The most damning feature of Colorado’s law — and the detail that Kaley Chiles’s legal team at Alliance Defending Freedom hammered at — was its one-directional nature. Kristen Waggoner, ADF’s CEO, put it directly: the law “only prohibits counselling conversations in one direction. It allows counselling conversations that aim to steer young people toward a gender identity different than their sex, but prohibits conversations that aim to help them return to comfort with their sex when they desire that.”

Read that again. A counsellor in Colorado could help a girl become more comfortable identifying as a boy. But if that same girl came back a year later and said she’d changed her mind, the counsellor was legally forbidden to help her.

That is not a neutral, evidence-based health policy, but the smoking gun that evidences the LGBT ideological capture masquerading as child protection. And once you see it clearly, you cannot unsee it.

Andrew Walker, writing in The American Conservative, identified the seed of this dynamic years ago: “A subjective ‘experience’ becomes normative and insulated against any type of moral critique, and where critique does occur, we’re told it is tantamount to violence. If I can be so blunt, this has the seeds of totalitarianism in it.”

Those seeds have grown. And they have grown here in Australia, too.

Australia: The Same Ideology, Fewer Fences

Australians might be tempted to read this ruling as an American story. It is not.

We have no First Amendment. We have no equivalent constitutional shield against the very laws the Supreme Court just struck down. What we do have is the same ideology, operating in most of our states, with sharper teeth and less accountability.

Victoria’s Change or Suppression Practices Prohibition Act — in force since 2022 — captures prayer, pastoral counsel, and conversations between parents and children. Similar laws now operate in Queensland, the ACT, New South Wales, and South Australia. By some estimates, roughly 85% of Australians now live under some form of these restrictions.

In New South Wales, praying with a person “with the intent to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity” can result in up to five years in prison. A parent who gently encourages a confused teenager to seek peace with their body could, depending on how the law is applied, find themselves before a tribunal, even if their child wants that help and advice.

Martyn Iles, then-Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby, described Victoria’s law in terms that have only become more apt: “It is not ‘conversion therapy’ that is now illegal in Victoria. It is Christianity, prayer, counsel, biology, common sense, and help for those struggling that is now banned.”

He called the law totalitarian. And when you look at what it actually prohibits, it is very hard to disagree.

Meanwhile, AHPRA — Australia’s health practitioner regulator — recently moved to silence psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos for publicly questioning the evidence base for childhood gender medicine. Not for harming patients. For asking questions. That is what captured institutions look like.

The Gift Kaley Chiles Has Given Us

The Chiles ruling does not change Australian law. It won’t strike down the Victoria or NSW legislation. But it does something equally important: it tells the truth about what these laws are.

When eight justices — liberal and conservative alike — look at a law that restricts speech in a therapist’s office and call it viewpoint discrimination, they are naming the mechanism that every “conversion therapy” ban in every Western jurisdiction shares. These are not health policies. They are new-LGBT-orthodoxy enforcement mechanisms. They decide which beliefs about the human person are permitted and which are forbidden — and they use the coercive power of the state to make that stick, with a stick and up to five years in prison.

Gorsuch’s warning about “censorious governments throughout history” applies as much in Melbourne and Sydney as it does in Denver.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel in the US, responding to the ruling, said: “I am going to encourage clients and counsellors to take off the muzzle that had been put on them.” That spirit needs to cross the Pacific.

The Call: Love Boldly, Speak Truthfully, Do Not Retreat

There is a temptation, when the cultural pressure is this intense, to go quiet. To soften the message. To find a way to seem less threatening to an ideology that has decided disagreement is violence. Don’t.

The lesson of Kaley Chiles is a moral one, not legal. She did not retreat from her convictions. She did not pretend to offer a service she didn’t believe in. She kept showing up for her clients, kept advocating for their right to choose their own therapeutic goals, and kept fighting — for years, through every court — because she believed that loving people well was worth the cost.

That is the model. Not loudness for its own sake or mustering the courage for combativeness without compassion. But what Australia needs is a clear-eyed refusal to pretend that enforced affirmation is the same as care. And along with it, a refusal to believe that Christians must remain quiet in the volatile public arena, whenever the rainbow alphabet is mentioned – not that you’d have to wait very long, given our pride flag-obsessed corporate and government agencies ready deployment of rainbow-smeared agit-prop.

Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, writing in the National Catholic Register, framed it beautifully: “Identity is not a subject to be resolved by state fiat, but by truth, grace, and accompaniment.” That is what Christian counsellors, pastors, parents, and youth workers offer. It’s what we Christians believe love looks like. And the state, elected in a free Christian democracy, based on Judeo-Christian governance, has no business using our own tax dollars to take it away.

That kind of love takes courage. It requires the willingness to be misunderstood, misrepresented, and — in some Australian states — potentially prosecuted. Just ask Lyle Shelton and Bernard Gaynor.

But the alternative is complicity with an anti-Christian ideology. And Kaley Chiles has shown us that such complicity is anathema to genuine Christian faith. In other words, we can either fear God or fear man, but never both at the same time.

The Supreme Court of the United States has spoken. And as for believers, the truth it confirmed has not changed. But now is not the time for Christians to go quiet — it is the time to love more boldly, speak more clearly, and refuse to let totalitarianism impersonate compassion.

Watch Paul Bedwell’s video: “Conversion Therapy Laws Just Got Banned (Here’s What Happened)“

___

Image courtesy of Adobe.