Page wrote:Galloism wrote:Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.
They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.
Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.
To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:
1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors
The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.
I haven't heard of anyone pushing people to be gay, but are you saying that if the law instead said it was forbidden to try to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity rather than specifying it's forbidden to try to make a gay person straight or a trans person cis, then it would be okay?
I'm going to use a good legal answer and say probably.
It would receive a lower standard of scrutiny, likely intermediate, and therefore far more likely to survive a challenge.