This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"Student who got 'gay cure' sues California over new law"

#1atmasabrPosted 10/4/2012 5:08:40 AM
http://gma.yahoo.com/student-got-gay-cure-sues-california-over-law-180012521--abc-news-health.html

[Hmm. Prediction: The lawsuit will be irrelevant, or the only way it could be relevant is if the law is overbroad, because we will see that the student did not actually have gay therapy through a licensed therapist.]

A college student who claims he once had same-sex attractions but became heterosexual after conversion therapy has filed a lawsuit against California, which has enacted a law that bans so-called "gay cures" for minors.

The lawsuit, also joined as plaintiffs by two therapists who have used the treatments with patients, alleges that the law banning the therapy intrudes on First Amendment protections of free speech, privacy and freedom of religion.

The student, Aaron Blitzer, who is studying to be a therapist in that field, said the law would prevent him from pursuing his career, according to court papers filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.


Yikes! This lawsuit's the real deal! And it'sabout as direct as you can get.

"The legislature had an errant assumption that every individual struggling with same-sex attraction is caused by their DNA," he said. "It ignores thousands, including the plaintiff, who have gone through therapy and are now in a happy and healthy heterosexual relationship."

Ah! This will be interesting.

Unfortunately, the only way to prove that is for the plaintiff to wear a monitoring device on his ****. Is he willing to do that?

The bill's sponsor, California state Sen. Ted Lieu, said the therapy -- called "conversion therapy," "sexual orientation therapy," "reparative therapy" or "sexual orientation change efforts" -- amounts to "psychological child abuse."

"I read the lawsuit and, as a matter of fiction, it is a good read," Lieu said in a prepared statement after the suit was filed. "But from any reasonable legal standard, the lawsuit is frivolous. Under the plaintiffs' argument, the First Amendment would shield therapists and psychiatrists from medical malpractice and psychological abuse claims simply because they use speech in practicing their medicine. That is a novel and frivolous view of the First Amendment."


Yeah, that's what I thought.
---
Do your own research!
#2Anarchy_JuiblexPosted 10/4/2012 5:35:19 AM
I'm a lawyer and a doctor, you should buy illegal drugs like crystal meth and smoke as much as it as you can before you pass out.

If you try to stop me from selling my advice, that's an attack on the 1st amendment!
---
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
#3goldwPosted 10/4/2012 5:35:26 AM
Ha...Humanity...
---
The Elbow of Peace shall cast judgement on the guilty
#4willythemailboyPosted 10/4/2012 5:41:40 AM
Isn't this law vulnerable to a roe v wade type challenge? Treatment is between doctor/therapist and patient, right? I could see outlawing the treatment against unwilling patients, but if the patient is there voluntarily I can't see how this law could possibly stand a legal challenge.
---
He who laughs last, thinks fastest.
#5Anarchy_JuiblexPosted 10/4/2012 5:45:39 AM(edited)
willythemailboy posted...
Isn't this law vulnerable to a roe v wade type challenge? Treatment is between doctor/therapist and patient, right? I could see outlawing the treatment against unwilling patients, but if the patient is there voluntarily I can't see how this law could possibly stand a legal challenge.


There are plenty of examples where that clearly isn't the case though.
Also, underage = no rights, they're a child patient to be protected by the state, they are not adults and can't be expected to make rational decisions.
---
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
#6willythemailboyPosted 10/4/2012 6:11:07 AM
Anarchy_Juiblex posted...
willythemailboy posted...
Isn't this law vulnerable to a roe v wade type challenge? Treatment is between doctor/therapist and patient, right? I could see outlawing the treatment against unwilling patients, but if the patient is there voluntarily I can't see how this law could possibly stand a legal challenge.


There are plenty of examples where that clearly isn't the case though.
Also, underage = no rights, they're a child patient to be protected by the state, they are not adults and can't be expected to make rational decisions.


This is clearly not true in the case of abortions (see all the whining about parental notification laws) or gender-reassignment surgery, why should it be true of orientation therapy?
---
He who laughs last, thinks fastest.
#7JohnnyTHM1212Posted 10/4/2012 6:28:47 AM
Ly willythemailboy posted...
Anarchy_Juiblex posted...
willythemailboy posted...
Isn't this law vulnerable to a roe v wade type challenge? Treatment is between doctor/therapist and patient, right? I could see outlawing the treatment against unwilling patients, but if the patient is there voluntarily I can't see how this law could possibly stand a legal challenge.


There are plenty of examples where that clearly isn't the case though.
Also, underage = no rights, they're a child patient to be protected by the state, they are not adults and can't be expected to make rational decisions.


This is clearly not true in the case of abortions (see all the whining about parental notification laws) or gender-reassignment surgery, why should it be true of orientation therapy?


Probably due to the difference between those - particularly in that its junk psychology motivated by religion.
---
He can swim through matter, he has poisoned teeth
His tentacles have murdered, his scream can kill the weak
#8childofdelightPosted 10/4/2012 8:15:59 AM
JohnnyTHM1212 posted...
Ly willythemailboy posted...
Anarchy_Juiblex posted...
willythemailboy posted...
Isn't this law vulnerable to a roe v wade type challenge? Treatment is between doctor/therapist and patient, right? I could see outlawing the treatment against unwilling patients, but if the patient is there voluntarily I can't see how this law could possibly stand a legal challenge.


There are plenty of examples where that clearly isn't the case though.
Also, underage = no rights, they're a child patient to be protected by the state, they are not adults and can't be expected to make rational decisions.


This is clearly not true in the case of abortions (see all the whining about parental notification laws) or gender-reassignment surgery, why should it be true of orientation therapy?


Probably due to the difference between those - particularly in that its junk psychology motivated by religion.


But... but... heteronormative parental role models are entirely necessary for the development of healthy psychology! That's why single mothers/fathers have never raised a healthy child!
---
//I`*'\;:;:;/'*`*`{ ~ Light and Love ~ }`*`*'\;:;:;/'*`I\Y/I`'*|~P L~\*'`'I\\
|]I'*'`|:/\:|`'*n*'`{ ~ Blessed Be ~ } `'*u*'`|:/\:|`'*'I[ | ]I`'*|~U R~\*'`I[|
#9TaiIs82Posted 10/4/2012 6:00:25 PM
This is a startling development. People like this aren't supposed to exist, according to the left and gamefaqs' own terms of use.

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss300/Tails82x/mod1-adminresponse.png

Who is this student and is he being honest? I demand some answers!
---
Lover of free speech and America. Running circles around the competition since 2009.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584938-off-your-rocker/64068634
#10Nitro378Posted 10/4/2012 6:19:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdTVxY7sR9U

was gonna find the actual video but thisll do
---
Anyone but Cameron/Clegg 2015
http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss300/Tails82x/SFD/sadchromeo6.png