(RNS) — Last week, the Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech overrides Colorado’s prohibition of conversion therapy with minors by licensed counselors whose therapeutic practice is purely verbal. If applied consistently, the 8-1 Chiles v. Salazar decision would have some good news for supporters of LGBTQ and abortion rights.

On its own terms, the decision is solidly based. The Colorado law at issue defines conversion therapy as “any practice or treatment by a licensee, registrant, or certificate holder that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” As noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch in the court’s majority opinion, both lower courts that handled the case understood the law as including speech as well as other practices “to help a minor client change his gender identity or sexual orientation.” 

At the same time, the law excludes from the prohibition practices and treatments that provide “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for … identity exploration and development … or [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition.” In other words, Colorado specifically permits licensed counselors to provide minors with what might be construed as “conversion therapy” to enable them to identify as gay or lesbian or to change their gender identity.

This is what’s known as viewpoint discrimination, by which the government singles out for restriction a particular perspective or point of view on a given subject. When it comes to the First Amendment, this, so far as the courts are concerned, is a particular no-no.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged the discrimination but sought to justify it on the grounds that those acting in a professional capacity may have their speech restricted in ways that don’t apply generally. Her two liberal colleagues weren’t buying. As Justice Elena Kagan put it in a concurrence joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “[B]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.”

Kagan did suggest that the issue would be more complicated if Colorado’s restriction were “viewpoint neutral.” Presumably that would mean prohibiting counselors from expressing any opinion, positive or negative, about conversion therapy.

But if a young person asks a counselor about the efficacy of such therapy, I don’t think we’d want the counselor to have to reply, “I’m forbidden by law to answer that question.” That’s because the evidence is that conversion therapy doesn’t work, that those undergoing it often suffer serious psychological harm, and counselors shouldn’t be barred from so informing their clients. 

As for using professional judgment to regulate professional speech, let’s bear in mind that professional judgment is not written in stone. As Gorsuch himself points out, “Not long ago, many medical experts and organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, considered homosexuality a mental disorder.” What if, back then, counselors had been legally barred from expressing a contrary opinion?

Gorsuch’s opinion wraps up with one of those classic Supreme Court dicta:

Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. 

In that regard, it’s important to recognize that there are states that seek to bar medical professionals from advising patients about the benefits and availability of abortion services and transgender treatment. Soon enough, the Supreme Court will be called upon to pronounce on their efforts. If the Court holds to Chiles v. Salazar’s stirring denunciation of government-enforced orthodoxy, those efforts will come to nought.