Maureen Groppe

And they said that trying to change someone's sexual orientation or their gender identity is not legitimate therapeutic treatment.

And not only does it not help, but actually harm someone.

Yeah, it was interesting that the Justice Department got involved because this involved a state law, not a federal law, so a dispute they could have stayed out of.

But they went beyond even just filing a brief supporting the counselor.

They asked the court for time during the oral arguments in October so they could help make the case for why they thought

this law was problematic.

And during those oral arguments, one of the points that the lawyer for the department made was about the fact that major medical groups have repudiated conversion therapy as ineffective and harmful.

They said, well, that may be true now, but they pointed out that

The prevailing standard of care can change.

And in fact, in the 1970s, medical groups thought that being gay was a mental illness.

So their point was that you can't use that as a standard to make it OK to violate someone's free speech rights.

The group has been very active bringing Supreme Court cases that they feel violate someone's, particularly their religious views, and they've been pretty successful.

The Supreme Court in recent years has issued a number of rulings that have been supportive of when they think someone's religious rights are being violated.

He argued that states have long had the ability to protect patients by regulating health care professionals.

And the state said that the evidence shows that trying to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't work.

And it can lead to depression, anxiety, a loss of faith, and also can make people think about suicide.

The advocacy groups representing LGBTQ plus folks are roundly condemning the decision.

The head of the Trevor Project, for example, he called the decision a tragic step backward for our country that will put young lives at risk.

So there were two cases.

One involved a website developer, another a cake baker, and both of those service providers were opposed to providing some services to gay customers.