Chiles v. Salazar · ¶73

Of course, it does not matter what the State's preferred side is. Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado's. Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things. As Ms. Chiles readily acknowledges, the First Amendment would apply in the identical way. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25–26; see also id., at 37–38 (United States as amicus curiae agreeing). Once again, because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.