LGBT

Appeals Court Reverses Decision Against Christian Counselors

A federal appeals court threw out a decision against two licensed counselors following the U.S. Supreme Court’s March ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which protects counselors’ free speech rights.

At the center of the current case are Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich, licensed Christian counselors who help clients facing many different challenges – from loneliness to hopelessness to other mental health struggles. The counselors also help minor clients seeking freedom from unwanted same-sex attraction or confusion over their sexual identity.

However, Kansas City, Missouri, and Jackson County, Missouri, passed ordinances prohibiting counselors from engaging in talk therapy – often wrongly derided by LGBT activists as “conversion therapy” – with minors seeking hope and healing in these areas.

Counselors are prohibited from helping minor clients leave unwanted homosexuality or “transgenderism”; they are only permitted to help minor clients embrace homosexuality or a new “gender identity” – even if the clients have opposite goals.

Because of the ordinances, Bury and Eisenreich – and other Christian counselors – can only speak state-approved, government-mandated messages that violate their faith. Infractions are punishable with fines up to $1,000 per violation and up to six months in jail.

Speech codes like this, which dictate what counselors can and cannot say depending on their views, strike at the heart of the Constitution’s free speech protections.

Bury and Eisenreich are represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Their attorneys filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent enforcement of the ordinances on February 7, 2025.

On July 10, however, the district court ruled against them. ADF then appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

On July 2, 2026, a three-judge panel on the court unanimously reversed the district court’s decision in light of Chiles and ordered it to reconsider the case.

In its Chiles decision, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against an essentially identical Colorado law prohibiting counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minor clients.

Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court,

The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.
It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.

Bury and Eisenreich are hoping to get our nation’s courts to follow the Court’s Chiles precedent in their case.

“No government should single out views they don’t like for disfavored treatment,” said ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart.

“The Kansas City and Jackson County ordinances allow counselors to push kids down the dangerous path of gender transition, often leading to harmful drugs and surgeries, but they forbid counselors like Wyatt and Pamela from talking with kids to help them accept their bodies—even when that is the client’s express goal or the reason they seek the counselors’ advice.”

Neihart continued,

This is precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court so recently explained isn’t acceptable under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s Chiles decision has breathed new life into efforts around the nation to protect free speech and ensure all people can receive help from licensed therapists – including when facing difficult matters like homosexuality and transgenderism.

While it may take a while for courts to apply Chiles to pending legal disputes, Bury and Eisenreich’s case is now headed in the right direction. That’s an important win for licensed counselors, struggling clients and the U.S. Constitution.

The case is Wyatt Bury v. City of Kansas City.

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

We also offer local referrals for licensed counselors who align with the mission and values of Focus on the Family.

Related articles and resources:

Oregon Withdraws $90K Fine Against Christian Counselor

Washington Counselor Asks Court to Protect Free Speech

The Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling: Four Truths You Should Know

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

What Is ‘Conversion Therapy’?

Photo from Alliance Defending Freedom.

NBC News Believes Saying ‘Biological Male and Female’ Deserves a Trigger Warning

Woke knows no limits on crazy. It seems every week brings new examples of how unstable some liberal minds can be. 

This week did not disappoint.

On June 30th, the morning the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision protecting female high school and college athletes from male intrusion, the NBC News’ TODAY show found it necessary to provide viewers with a trigger warning for why they were using the terms “biological male” and “biological female.”

You can see the spectacle here:

NBC News anchor Craig Melvin announced, 

Just a quick note here, the terms that we’re using here during our reporting – biological male, biological female – the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and dissent. But just so you know, we’re using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female.

NBC News is wrong here. The majority mentions “biological sex,” “biological women,” and “biological men” 175 times in their decision and concurrences. Not once do they put those words in quotation marks. They state them for the objective facts that they are. Only liberal Justices Sotomayor and Jackson put “biological sex” in quotes as if they are not actual things.

This marks the gaping chasm in how gender ideologues and normal people see reality. Biological sex is a fact that is unoffensive to anyone who is not tainted by gender ideology.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley commented about this silliness from NBC on X, explaining, “This is how the press becomes a parody of itself.”

It certainly is.

Gender ideology is shot through with the ridiculousness of being scared to speak of male and female as objective biological fact. Just last year, Australian Senator Claire Chandler asked Dr. Anna Cody, Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, about the nature of biology as it concerns what it means to be a man or a woman. 

Dr. Cody responded, “Men, uh, I think we have different language that we are using. I don’t understand the term ‘biological men.’” Cody is a well-educated law school dean who serves the Australian government as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and she refuses to use the words “biology” or “biological.”

This is the brain melting poison of gender ideology and NBC News has demonstrated that it is infected with the disease.

No one should ever try to play along with gender ideology, even from a misplaced sense of kindness or silly “pronoun hospitality.” It results in not being able to say what a man or woman is and apologizing for using biologically factual words.

LGBT ideology created and demands this ever-descending level of cultural insanity.

Most Americans Support Children’s Right to a Mother and Father, New Poll Finds

Eleven years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court radically redefined marriage to include the union of same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the Court’s decision, claimed the Constitution’s promise of “liberty” required allowing two people of the same sex to “marry” “on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex” because marriage “embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.”

In affirming this “right,” Justice Kennedy made a fatal error: He prioritized the rights and desires of adults over the natural rights and desires of children.

Children have the right to be known, raised, loved and nurtured by their natural mother and father. “Same-sex marriage” erases that right.

Because same-sex couples are in an inherently infertile relationship, they must acquire children (who will be biologically unrelated to at least one of them) by other means: adoption, IVF, sperm and egg donation, and surrogacy.

Justice Kennedy – intentionally or not – threw the door wide open for same-sex couples to acquire, purchase, create and adopt children through any means necessary, robbing them of their right to know and be loved by their own mother and father.

Thankfully, many Americans are beginning to wake up to this reality.

According to a new national survey, conservative and moderate likely general election voters express broad agreement on children’s rights: 82% believe no child should be deliberately denied a mother or a father.

“For years, the left has portrayed the belief that children deserve both their mother and father as a fringe view,” said Katy Faust, founder and president of Them Before Us, in a press release. “This poll proves otherwise.”

Faust added,

Among conservative and moderate voters, there is overwhelming agreement that children have a right to both parents whenever possible.
At a time when the political right is often described as divided, this issue stands out as one of remarkable unity.

The poll also found that of surveyed conservative and moderate voters:

  • 96% say it is important for a child to be raised with both an involved mother and an involved father.
  • 78% agree that when a child’s needs conflict with an adult’s desires, the child’s needs should come first.
  • 66% reject the claim that being raised by same-sex parents is no different for a child than being raised by an adoptive mother and father.
  • 63% agree that children are harmed when they lose their mother or father to be raised in a same-sex household.

Them Before Us has begun the Greater Than Campaign, a national coalition working to reclaim marriage on behalf of children.

Many “parents, faith leaders, scholars, lawyers, and advocacy organizations” have joined the campaign, including Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, the Colson Center, the American Family Association, Allie Beth Stuckey, Josh Hammer, Michael Knowles and more.

“The conviction that children should come before adult desires remains a defining value shared across the conservative movement,” Faust said.

Eleven years after Obergefell, the ruling’s dire consequences for children are becoming increasingly clear. That’s why support for same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships has been declining among all U.S. adults and particularly among conservatives.

We must all continue to speak the truth in love as we have opportunity, teaching our fellow Americans that children’s right to their mother and father is greater than the right of same-sex couples to obtain them.

The fight to protect children’s rights is just beginning. Learn more about the Greater Than Campaign.

Related articles and resources:

Defending the Rights of Children

Children’s Rights Should Always Come Before Adults’ Desires

Supreme Court Declines Petition Challenging ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ Ruling

It’s Good the Left Fears the Overturning of Gay ‘Marriage’

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children and Society

Why Focus on the Family Believes Obergefell Must Be Struck Down

Support for Same-Sex Marriage and Relationships Declines Among Conservatives

Photo from Shutterstock.

Oregon Withdraws $90K Fine Against Christian Counselor

Christian counselor Frank Canepa has won a legal battle after being fined nearly $90,000 for refusing to affirm a client’s same-sex relationship.

Canepa is a licensed professional counselor who helps his clients achieve their stated goals. As a Roman Catholic, he provides counseling consistent with his religious beliefs.

For over two and a half years, Canepa counseled a client on a weekly basis at an “extremely reduced” rate, including multiple pro bono sessions.

Over the course of their counseling sessions, the client brought up the topic of same-sex relationships at least 44 times. Canepa never disclosed his personal views on such relationships during those sessions because he sought to “honor her personal life choices and direction in her own life.”

However, on July 10, 2023, the client again brought up the topic of same-sex relationships and demanded for 20 minutes that Canepa personally bless her same-sex relationship.

At this point, Canepa felt the need to disclose his view in the interest of truth and authenticity. Because of his Catholic faith, Canepa “told her [he] was unable to provide” the “level of personal affirmation for same-sex relationships” she desired “because of [his] Catholic faith.”

Following the session, the client filed a complaint against Canepa with the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists. The Board decided to punish Canepa by fining him $89,636, and ordering him to undergo continuing education, for allegedly violating Oregon law and the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics.

The Board said Canepa violated ACA Code Rule A.4.b, which requires counselors to “avoid imposing … their own values … especially when the counselor’s values are … discriminatory in nature.”

But Canepa was not discriminating against anyone. He was simply exercising his First Amendment right to speak freely and share his personal view after his client asked him to do so.

The Board imposed the punishment on August 5, 2025, after which Canepa appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. He is represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

On June 5, 2026, the Board thankfully withdrew its disciplinary action against Canepa without explanation.

“The government can’t target counselors for their views and force people to say things that go against their core convictions,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs.

What caused the Board to reconsider its judgement between August 2025 and June 2026?

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Chiles v. Salazar – a landmark opinion protecting the right of Christian counselors to speak freely in conversations with clients.

The Oregon Board cited Chiles in its decision to withdraw the judgement against Canepa.

“The Supreme Court recently took Colorado to task for censoring counselors and mandating orthodoxy in the counselor’s office, and Oregon should take notice,” Scruggs continued. “ADF will continue to ensure that free speech is protected in Oregon — and every state where it’s threatened — and halt states’ attempts to weaponize their licensure systems.”

This case demonstrates how important it is for Christians to be courageous and stand by their convictions in our culture today.

Had Kaley Chiles, the Christian counselor at the center of the Chiles case, decided not to defend her First Amendment right to free speech all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, Canepa would likely still be defending his constitutional rights before the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Thanks to the precedent set by Chiles, Canepa is again free to practice counseling in accordance with his faith.

The case is Canepa v. Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists.

Related articles and resources:

Austin Fire Chaplain Wins Settlement After Being Fired for Defending Biological Reality

Teacher Wins $650,000 After Being Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Trans’ Pronouns

Oregon School District Pays $650,000 for Firing Teachers Opposed to ‘Trans’ Policy

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

The Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling: Four Truths You Should Know

Court Awards $885,000 in Attorney Fees After Counseling Censorship Victory

Photo from Shutterstock.

Court Blocks California ‘Gender Secrecy Law’ and Affirms Parental Rights

California parents scored a big victory as a court blocked a law that kept school districts from reporting a child’s “sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” to parents. 

America First Legal announced the decision on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach and parents, saying: 

[T]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of key provisions of California’s AB 1955 – a law that prohibits schools from disclosing information to parents about a child’s sexual orientation, “gender identity,” or gender expression, unless the child consents.
In other words, the State of California sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about “gender transitions” of their own children without the child’s consent.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1955, the dishonestly named “SAFETY Act” (Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act), in July 2024, as California Family Council (CFC) reported: 

This legislation, passed by the California Legislature and now signed into law, allows schools to withhold critical information from parents about their children’s health and welfare. The bill specifically prohibits school districts from enacting policies requiring parents to be notified if their child has asked everyone at school to use a different name and pronoun.

AB 1955 was predicated on the idea that children “have a constitutional right to privacy” that forbade schools from requiring employees “to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent.” 

Instead of affirming parents’ right to direct the upbringing of their children, the bill created a “government-imposed wall of secrecy between parents and their children,” CFC stated.  

Shortly after Governor Newsom signed the “gender secrecy law,” the Huntington Beach City Council voted to prohibit school employees from hiding information about students from their parents. The council passed an ordinance declaring Huntington Beach a “Parents’ Right to Know City.”

The ordinance led to the legal challenge against California, with America First Legal and SchaerrJaffee LLP filing a lawsuit in September 2024. 

The Ninth Circuit twice denied motions for preliminary injunctions against the law, but in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta, which reasserted parents’ rights over any school’s “transgender” parent exclusion policies, the city and parents asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider. 

The three-judge panel said the Mirabelli decision “affirmed the substantive due process right of parents ‘to direct the upbringing and education of their children’” which “includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health” (their emphasis). 

When dealing with serious mental health issues related to children’s identity and sexuality, the Ninth Circuit panel explained: 

As framed by the Court, the plaintiff parents thus have an affirmative constitutional right to be provided with any such information.

CFC Vice President Greg Burt applauded the decision, saying: 

For years, Sacramento told parents they had no right to know when their own child was living as a different sex at school. We said that was wrong and that it violated the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit now agrees.
AB 1955 was built to keep moms and dads in the dark. This ruling pulls back the curtain. No parent should have to learn from a stranger what the school already knew about their child.

American First Legal said this is their second appeals court-level win following Mirabelli. The nonprofit law firm pointed to a case in Pennsylvania where the Pine Richland School District secretly provided “taxpayer-funded ‘gender transition teams’ to students without parental notification or consent.” 

A mom sued, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, again citing Mirabelli, said she could pursue a damage case against the school district. 

The California case is City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom. 

The Pennsylvania case is Doe v. Pine Richland School District.

Related articles and resources: 

Barrett v. Kagan: Key Takeaways From Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Transgender’ School Policies

BREAKING: Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Says California School District Cannot Force Teachers to Lie to Parents About Their Children’s ‘Gender Identity’

California Family Council

California Teachers Told to Hide Information About Students’ ‘Gender’ From Parents – They’re Suing

California Schools May Not Hide Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Supreme Court Affirms Parents’ Rights Over California’s ‘Transgender’ School Policies

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum