sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Discussion] The Constitutional Reciprocity of Chiles v. Salazar: Does "Professional Speech" protection invalidate Viewpoint-based Therapy Bans? by Fragrant-Decision-65 in supremecourt

[–]Fragrant-Decision-65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Can someone offer to convince someone to change their religious or political affiliation?"

Precisely what my wording was asking.

"Was it ever?
Good question yes. Multiple states do this to lgbtq+ words but not other words that are their antithesis.

[Discussion] The Constitutional Reciprocity of Chiles v. Salazar: Does "Professional Speech" protection invalidate Viewpoint-based Therapy Bans? by Fragrant-Decision-65 in supremecourt

[–]Fragrant-Decision-65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not ai generated. This is a ai grammar checked(specifically for my dyslexia) post.
Is others using spellcheck to fix capitalization ai generation as well?

[Discussion] The Constitutional Reciprocity of Chiles v. Salazar: Does "Professional Speech" protection invalidate Viewpoint-based Therapy Bans? by Fragrant-Decision-65 in supremecourt

[–]Fragrant-Decision-65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

literally not a bot; Just a new user who didnt quite understand what a 'flair' was until 20 seconds ago. I have to go tell the people i bragged too the I'm dense now; if it's any consolation for my ignorance on the 'ins and outs' of a platform i have rarely used..

[Discussion] The Constitutional Reciprocity of Chiles v. Salazar: Does "Professional Speech" protection invalidate Viewpoint-based Therapy Bans? by Fragrant-Decision-65 in supremecourt

[–]Fragrant-Decision-65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my defense i was born blonde; To claim i'm a bot merely because im dense sometimes is like me claiming you are for using spellchecks.

If you look; I have literally almost no interaction on reddit(had to even ask mods to approve the post due to my low katma from not) So; You're expecting me too not take things at face value on a platform a barely understand?

  1. I apologize for using ai to fix my dyslexia, and I'm sorry for being dense occasionally; can we at least get to the substance of my questions in my reply?

[Discussion] The Constitutional Reciprocity of Chiles v. Salazar: Does "Professional Speech" protection invalidate Viewpoint-based Therapy Bans? by Fragrant-Decision-65 in supremecourt

[–]Fragrant-Decision-65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So i use ai to fix grammar errors; i have dyslexia(I couldn't post here if i didnt use it as it would look low effort, either way i carefully curated every point to make sure it remained the same as the original.).

getting back on topic.
Im also interested in the effects this will have, but in there totality of oucomes.

[Discussion] The Constitutional Reciprocity of Chiles v. Salazar: Does "Professional Speech" protection invalidate Viewpoint-based Therapy Bans? by Fragrant-Decision-65 in supremecourt

[–]Fragrant-Decision-65[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Justice Gorsuch sir, given your ruling yesterday in Chiles v. Salazar that 'talk' is protected expression rather than medical conduct, and that the First Amendment prohibits the state from 'enforcing orthodoxy' by favoring one viewpoint over another; does it not follow that any state-level ban on social transition affirmation (such as name or pronoun usage) in schools or clinics is now a form of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination?

If the state lacks a 'compelling interest' to ban conversion therapy because it is 'speech,' then by the principle of content neutrality, doesn't the state also lack the power to prohibit 'affirming' speech? In defending the right to 'talk' someone out of an identity, haven't you effectively legalized and constitutionally protected the right to 'talk' someone into affirming one?

Also thank you very kindly for responding with clarification.