Welcome to Breakpoint, a daily look, and an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth.

For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street.

Well, Colorado has extended its losing streak at the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the court ruled in Childs v. Salazar, a case that challenged a law that prohibited licensed counselors from helping clients, especially children, reconcile their identity

with their sex through talk therapy. The eight-to-one decision included all of the court's

conservative justices and two of its liberal justices. Because the Colorado law would restrict

speech based on viewpoint the court held, it violated the First Amendment. The plaintiff in the

case is Kaylee Childs, a Colorado-based counselor who provides talk therapy to her patients. As the court

explained, talk therapy is speech. It does not involve physical treatments or medical prescriptions.

It consists only of the spoken word. And in counseling her patients,

including children, Childs often discusses issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Under the Colorado law, Childs could express acceptance and support of a child's so-called

identity exploration. She could even assist a child to, quote-unquote, transition

his or her agenda. However, she was forbidden from saying anything to change sexual orientation

or from helping a child feel comfortable with his or her god-given sex. And that, the court

recognized, is flat-out viewpoint discrimination. Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion for the court, called Colorado's law an egregious and blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Even Justice Kagan agreed with that.

And a short concurring opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, the liberal justice called this a textbook case of viewpoint discrimination.

The law, she said, and I quote, distinguishes between two opposed sets of ideas,

the one resisting, the other reflecting the state's own view of how to speak with minors about

sexual orientation and gender identity. On such an ideologically charged issue, the First Amendment does not allow Colorado to enable speech on one side, but restrict it on the other.

And their futile attempt to defend their law, Colorado argued that it was a regulation of professional speech,

...