UMVA has learned that a Roman Catholic therapist who stood firm in his convictions has been vindicated after facing a hefty fine for refusing to endorse a client's same-sex relationship.
Frank Canepa, a licensed professional counselor, had been seeing a client for over two years when she asked him to support her relationship. However, Canepa explained that his faith prohibited him from doing so, and he refused to compromise his beliefs.
Oregon's Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists had previously slapped Canepa with a $90,000 fine and a disciplinary notice, claiming he had violated state law and the American Counseling Association's Code of Ethics. But in a stunning reversal, the penalty has been rescinded.
The turning point came when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado therapist, Kaley Chiles, who had also refused to conform to state ideology. The court's decision effectively cut the legs out from under Oregon's attempts to enforce its own brand of orthodoxy.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Canepa, hailed the decision as a major victory for free speech and the protection of counselors' core convictions. ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs emphasized that the government cannot force counselors to express views that go against their deeply held beliefs.
Canepa's case highlights the dangers of a state-imposed orthodoxy, where officials dictate what licensed professionals can and cannot say about sensitive topics. As one author noted, this kind of government overreach threatens not just one person's livelihood but the very fabric of free expression.
The ADF argued that Oregon's actions had violated Canepa's First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. With the fine rescinded, Canepa can continue to practice his profession without fear of reprisal for his sincerely held beliefs.
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the First Amendment protects counselors and their right to express their views, even if they diverge from official state ideology. As the legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom's Center for Free Speech noted, the government cannot punish counselors for answering a client's question about their views on a subject.
