The government may not silence conscience or conversation. The American experiment depends on this simple, yet increasingly threatened principle. And that is what’s at stake in Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court case brought by Kaley Chiles, a Colorado counselor who contends that a 2019 Colorado law forbids her from offering counseling to minors who, for deeply held religious reasons, seek help addressing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Narrowly tailored safety rules are legitimate; viewpoint-based censorship is not. Those who care about the First Amendment need not endorse every viewpoint voiced in a counselor’s office to understand what’s at risk. A free society must tolerate — and protect — the right of adults and children under adult care to seek counsel consistent with their convictions, and the right of counselors to speak and advise in good conscience. As Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom put it: “The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors.” That is precisely the constitutional question the Court now faces. Defenders of Colorado’s law say that the state is regulating professional practice to protect minors from harmful, discredited treatments. That is a weighty interest. But, when does state regulation of a private practice cross the line of censorship, particularly when the counseling session consists of conversational, faith-informed talk rather than a clearly defined medical intervention? The answer matters far beyond this single law: it will shape whether states can silence therapists, pastors, and parents who speak from religious conviction about human identity and moral formation. From the oral argument before the Court, it was clear that several justices were wrestling with whether Colorado’s statute crosses a constitutional line by regulating viewpoints rather than conduct. Religious and civic conservatives have long warned that legislative zeal to enforce cultural orthodoxy can slide into penalizing ordinary pastoral counsel. Albert Mohler warned that bans of this kind could “criminalize normal orthodox biblical counsel” and imperil the ability of families and churches to live out their convictions. That is not hyperbole to believers; it describes a legal regime in which conscience is subordinated to state preferences. This is not merely a dispute about therapeutic technique; it’s a dispute about who decides which ideas may be expressed in private counseling sessions. A culture that narrows the space of permissible speech to a single set of orthodoxies forfeits the pluralism that makes democratic life possible. Alan Sears, a longtime leader devoted to defending religious liberty, has repeatedly emphasized that living according to one’s deepest convictions must be protected in both the public square and one’s private life. When the state starts dictating which religiously informed counseling methods are lawful, it tilts the scale against pluralism and toward centralized coercion. Nor is this some abstract legalism. Counselors and families already report a chilling effect: therapists decline to provide faith-informed counsel out of fear of state sanction; parents and adolescents are deterred from seeking approaches consistent with their beliefs. The resulting flight from help or movement underground to unregulated providers is hardly the picture of thoughtful public-health policy. If the state’s interest is truly the welfare of minors, the government should pursue narrowly tailored measures that protect health while preserving robust First Amendment protections for clients and counselors alike. This case demands humility from both sides. Those who view conversion efforts as harmful are right to press concerns about safety and empirical evidence. Those who view the law as an overbroad censorship are right to defend the free exchange of ideas and conscience. The Constitution resolves such disputes not by choosing which views are right, but by guarding the marketplace of ideas and ensuring that the state cannot single out disfavored perspectives for suppression. If the Supreme Court protects Kaley Chiles’ right to speak and to counsel consistent with her convictions, it will not be endorsing any one theology or therapeutic method. It will simply be reaffirming an older, truer principle: the government may not silence private, faith-informed conversation. As former Vice President Mike Pence has repeatedly said in defending religious liberty and free speech, our founders entrusted to citizens and communities, not the state, the responsibility for shaping conscience and belief. That constitutional trust deserves protection. The Court should guard that trust. Narrowly tailored safety rules are legitimate; viewpoint-based censorship is not. In a free republic, the remedy for speech we dislike is more speech: honest conversation, reasoned persuasion, and pastoral care, not the blunt instrument of criminal law. The stakes of Chiles v. Salazar are larger than one statute or one counselor: they reach to the soul of our constitutional order. The Supreme Court should protect the rights of counselors and their clients to pursue truth and moral formation according to conscience, not permit the state to dictate an approved orthodoxy and silence those who don’t fall in line. READ MORE from Greg Schaller: The Supreme Court Puts IQ on Trial Again Republic or Democracy: Democrats’ Crusade to ‘Save Our Democracy’ Is a Ploy to Undermine Our Constitution Shutdown Shows We Must Scale Back Bureaucratic Infringement of Gun Rights Greg Schaller serves as the director of the Centennial Institute, the conservative think tank of Colorado Christian University. He has taught politics at CCU, Villanova University, and St. Joseph’s University. He holds a BA in political science and history from Eastern University and an MA in political science from Villanova University.